More on Gloria Jeans and Hillsong

18/03/08 - for the latest on this story, please visit this link to my G'Day World blog.

Remember that post I did a couple of weeks ago about Gloria Jeans and Hillsong?

Well my mate Glenn took it to a couple of newspapers in Sydney and they've done some more digging. Check out this article from SX News. Pretty interesting stuff, especially this bit:

 

You see, every Gloria Jean’s   franchisee is required to pay 8% of its gross profits back to the franchise   (according to their own website) in the forms of royalty and advertising fees.   Given that Hillsong members are required to ‘tithe’ (give) 10% of their   pre-tax income to the Church (according to BRW 26 May — 1 June 2005) the more   coffee they sell, the more money made by the Saleh’s and the Irvine’s and the   more souls can be saved by Hillsong. This might not sound like much to you as   you fork over a couple of bucks for your skinny latte, however to put this   into perspective, Gloria Jean’s annual sales now exceed $100 million a year.   

The same success that Gloria Jean’s has seen, Hillsong is sharing.   Business is booming down at Hillsong, they raked in a staggering $40 million   last year in tax free revenue, and donations and salary tithes totaled $13   million (according to The Australian 29 July, 2005). Imagine the cappuccinos   you could buy with that! 

Comments

[Ross Chapman]

Glad i don't buy coffee. I'll make sure i pass this round, as i work with a number of hillsongers that we all really despise. Something about holding prayer meetings at work to pray for the souls of the sinners they work with that just sets me off.

[Tony]

Now that sounds like a fun place to work. If you don't believe in a higher power (God, Buddha...etc) can you be a sinner?

[Joel Parsons]

Warren Buffet is leaving part of his fortune to support Planned Parenthood in South & Central America (more abortions). Dick Pratt's wife gives millions of dollars to the arts. The Packers fund a significant proportion of the world's professional polo players. And the owners of Gloria Jeans choose to give some of their own hard earned Moolah to their church. So what?

[Cameron Reilly]

Joel, what people choose to support with their own money is obviously up to them. What bothered me initially about GJ's was that they were taking MY money and giving it to a christian fundamentalist charity (again, nothing wrong with that) but they weren't TELLING me up-front about the organisation they were giving it to. That's the bit I've got a problem with. I want to know where my money is going.

[Jezz]

It's amusing watching the bigots on this blog come out to play. The under-informed, conspiracy theorists. Cameron wants to know where his money is going. Is this a selective criteria based on the fact that the franchisors of Gloria Jeans in Australia happen to attend the Hillsong Church, or do you require fill financial disclosure statements from every business you deal with? I think not.

This again demonstrates why Cameron's half arsed bluster lacks credibility. Would a little bit of informed debate go astray? The only news publication that was will to touch 'Your mate Glenn's' in depth expose was a Street
Press Publication for the gay community. Unsuprisingly this was full of factual inaccuracies, but I guess that goes with the theme of this blog.

I would encourage anyone who has any moral issues with Gloria Jeans donating money to assist disadvantaged girls to make a small donation to a non-religious affiliated charity instead.

You don't have to agree with the perspective of people from that faith, but to denegrate what they do in the community is just sick, unless you are prepared to do something about it.

[Cameron Reilly]

Jezz, I don't think I've ever claimed this blog was anything other than "half arsed bluster". IN fact, I like that description so much I might change the name of the blog to that.

I'm all for informed debate. Why not provide us with some facts?

DO I require full financial disclosure statements? It's a good question and one I've spent a long time thinking about today. The answer is, no, I don't I demand it today, but I think in a perfect world I would like to have that information. I'd like to know what companies are doing with the money I give them.

Finally, it wasn't my objective to denigrate GJ's or Hillsong and, re-reading my posts, I don't think you can in all seriousness accuse me of that. My objective was merely to make the relationship known and the fact that the charity GJ's was donating money to was Christian.

The godpolitics movement in this country does bother me. A lot.

[Jezz]

I welcome your invitation for some informed debate and facts. I will address your concerns in separate posts. The first one will be "godpolitics".

I believe that the boundaries between religious beliefs and politics should remain clear. A lot of fuss has been made on this blog, and also in the mainstream media about the fact that Federal Member for Greenway, Louise Markus, attends Hillsong Church.

What no-one appears to have done, is to ask Louise what her stance on certain moral issues is.

Take for example the issue of the abortion pill. Read the following article published in The Australian.

Louise Markus responded by saying she had not formed an opinion on the issue. "I will always consider the facts because often issues like this are quite complex"

That appears to me at least to be a fairly measured response compared to some of the other non-religiously affiliated MPs. Hardly godpolitics. Louise Markus is a politician who happens to attend Hillsong Church. Are we now arguing that Australian citizens should be excluded from running for public office because of their religious beliefs?

68% of Australians identified themselves as Christian in the last census (2001). Should they not have some political representation?

More to follow...

[Cameron Reilly]

Jezz, should people be excluded from running for public office because of their religious beliefs? No. Should we be worried if they are using their religious beliefs as the basis by which they approach legislative issues? Absolutely.

The Census also shows that almost a third of Australia is not Christian. In fact it showed a rising tendency among all Australians to state that they did not affiliate with any religion. Christianity, on the whole, has been in serious decline in this country since the 70s.

According to the ABS 2002 General Social Survey, 23% of Australian adults participated in church or religious activities during the three months prior to interview.

So this movement towards overtly Christian politicians, who use their faith to make decision which affect all of us, worries me. And I don't think I'm alone.

[Tony]

Look at what George Bush has done to the education system in the USA.

I may not be overly religious even though I guess technically I am Catholic but intelligent design is codswallop as far as I am concerned.

With all the scientific information out now how can we be going back to the middle ages with some of the crazy ideas being sprouted nowadays. Next thing you will say the world is flat.

[Jezz]

I see, Cameron. So only people with your views should be able to have those views represented in Parliament. The essence of Democracy is not that one viewpoint, and one viewpoint alone should be represented. Should people be concerned that you are advocating a narrowminded democracy where only the views of a select few are represented? Absolutely.

Democracy is not just for Atheists or Agnostics. Your views form your belief system. You are advocating that only your belief system should be representing the the drafting of legislation.

I am not going to say that my point of view towards these matters is right or wroing. There needs to be equal representation from all communities on proprosed Legislation. It doesn't matter whether you're gay, straight, black, white, Muslim, Christian or Atheist. Your views, Cameron, when it comes to who should be able to review and influence legislation are just as important as any Christian.

You should be giving credit to Louise Markus for displaying an open minded approach to issues that affect our nation.

Tony, I am in 100% agreement with you point of view on George Bush. The religious right in that country has far too much influence on public policy, particulary when it comes to important issues such as abortion, science and education. It would be an absolute disaster if that happened here. I believe Intelligent design should be taught in schools, but not in place of evolution and not in science classes. Not to present a different theory about such a huge issue is to limit education to the point of view of one side of the debate. Conversely, it should be compulsary to teach evolution in religious schools for exactly the same reason.

But you both give the Australian public too little credit. The solution is not to stifle debate, or to oppress dissenting views in Parliament as you're advocating, debate should be encouraged. We don't need any more Fred Niles in government, but we do need more Louise Markus's.

[Cameron Reilly]

No, Jezz, you're missing the point. I'm not saying there shouldn't be Christians in parliament. I'm saying that Parliamentarians who govern based on their religious beliefs is what concerns me.

It's another issue entirely, but why do you believe ID should be taught in schools? Should they teach every theory about everything in school? Flying Spaghetti Monsterism too? Surely in a civilized, 21st century society we should teach our children theories based on evidence and scientific method. If parents want to send their children to religious education or teach them a mythology in their own home, then that's fine. But surely school isn't the right place for such ideas (unless it's in a class about mythology).

Getting back to Markus, I don't know what I should be giving her credit for. When she makes a decision based on facts and not based on her religious beliefs, then I will be happy to give her credit. I hope that she uses the power she has been given as a representative of the people to guide our laws and our society according to what is best for the country, not what her own personal religious beliefs might be. That is the acid test.

[Tony]

I don't think I am giving the Australian public too little credit. Most people I work with just follow mainstream media for their news and don't look at the world around them to get different opinions. It like saying that if it appears on the evening news then it MUST be true. That's just plain wrong.

I am not afraid of debate but encourage it. I am with Cam though in beliveing that elected officials should be doing what is best for the people who voted them as a big picture, not because whether it has been approved by a particular religion. That is only serving the religion, no matter which one it is irrelevant but safe to say in Australia it would be Christianity.

If ID is to be taught in all schools then evolution must also be taught as well. You can't have one and not the other. I hate to say I afree with Cam again but in this current day and age and with all the scientific evidence to prove evolution I can't see how ID can stand on 2 legs.

I wish I was as eloquent as Cam was in his posts, I always ramble so much.

[Jezz]

Cameron. You have reinforced that you only believe that politicians who are prepared to govern by your belief system should be able to legislate. You don't seem prepared to accept that not the entire community subscribes to your faith (or lack thereof).

Citizens of this country should have their views recognised not just in the debate of legislation, but also the passing of legislation. It is a damning indictment of your own narrowminded views on religion, that you don't believe people of faith should be represented in the passing of legislation.

I am not saying that one view should prevail over another, or that Religion or morality should be legislated, but in an ideal democracy, ALL parties should be open to rule.

Evolution is a theory. There is obvious evidence to suggest that this has been occurring for millions of years. The theory that the complexity of life may also be the result of intelligent design is entirely compatible with this. It is a not a theory that ignores the evidence, it is a theory that expands on it. Flying Spaghetti Monsterism on the other hand should probably be left to Mythology classes as you suggest.

You are clearly a highly intelligent individual, which is why it strikes me as odd that you would have such a closed minded approach to science. Sience is not just about the study of what we know, but it's more about what we don't know.

I don't know if Intelligent Design is true. Nor does any of us know whether the theory of evolution is true.

To assume that we know all the answers is the height of arrogance. To censor genuine scientific debate in the classroom is to limit ourselves and the ability to enhance our knowledge of who we are.

It is clear that we are people of very different views on politics and matters of doctrine. But there a clearly also things we agree on.

We don't want one particular belief system to dictate how we as a society should live.

We believe that Science should be taught in schools with regard to what we know.

All I am trying to argue is open mindedness. I know I will never pursuade you to my point of view, nor you to yours.

"It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it."

Joseph Joubert (French essayist and moralist)

[Jezz]

Oh, and Tony. If you re-read my original post, I did not advocate the teaching exclusively of Intelligent Design in schools, but teaching both side by side.

[Cameron Reilly]

Jezz, you contend that "The theory that the complexity of life may also be the result of intelligent design is entirely compatible with (evolution)."

And yet the vast majority of scientists seem to disagree. The National Academy of Sciences has said that Intelligent Design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because their claims cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own.

Intelligent Design asserts that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection.

While this may be an interesting theory, it isn't science. And as rational beings, who have had the benefits of 500 years of scientific investigation, surely we must eschew theories that cannot be substantiated with evidence?

I guess this is the crux of where you and I part on both the godpolitics issue and the intelligent design issue.

You seem to argue for a return to the middle ages, where religion had a place in government and secular education. I am arguing that religion has no place in either. It is a private matter that should not have a part in how we are goverened or educated. People who are religious are welcome in such institutions, but the content of their religion is not.

I do not believe that only politicians who are prepared to govern by my belief system should be able to legislate. You either aren't understanding my comments or choosing to ignore them. It doesn't matter to me what religion a Member of Parliament is. What matters to me is to what degree they bring their religion into the room and onto the vote.

[Cameron Reilly]

Editor's note:

Jezz's last post has been censored as it points out fundamental flaws in my argument and exposes the fact that I am a bigot.

Independent thought is not tolerated on this blog when it is not compatible with my own views.

[Cameron Reilly]

LOL! FYI folks, that last comment from me was not from me! Will the real Cameron stand up?

Jezz (or whoever wrote that comment) - you comment has not been edited or censored by me in any way and I snort with laughter at the suggestion.

[Tony]

Cam's name normally links to his website for his normal posts, the imposter Cam links to his gmail account.

It is pretty damn funny though. Wish I had thought of it.

[pas]

It is a sad state of affairs if we are to return to the middle ages when church and state were one and the same. I think Jezz, John Howard, Dubya and the u.s religious right, Hillsong and other pentacostal 'cults' would love this to happen.

[GJ's customer]

Hey ALL,

If you don't like the Christian base that is GJ's, then DON'T DRINK THE COFFEE!! Who gives a rip what money go where, The fact is they put back into the community as well, in big way,... what have YOU done for your community lateley, other then whing about it.

[Cameron Reilly]

Meg, I DID stop drinking their coffee. I used to buy GJ's probably once or twice a week but I haven't had one since October. I've got nothing against Christians and I've got nothing against people doing something for the community. I do have a problem with any business taking my money and then using it to promote fundamentalism of any kind.

[Soph]

I went for a job recently at Gloria Jeans at Norwest where the Hillsong church is...the manager asked me questions such as "what is spiritual connection?" and "what have you done to make somebodies day?"...these questions i believe would have an open personal response but i was wrong, i was corrected on what 'spiritual connection' really was...only employing Hillsong keeps their money in a sick money driven cycle

[dissenter]

Sorry to be pedantic here, but once you hand over your $3.00 to GJ for a cup of coffee (or whatever it costs), isn't that $3.00 then legally owned by GJ's? It is no longer your money. You have no right and no say in how it is spent. Complaining that GJ's donates some of their money to "fundamentalist christianity" is equivalent to complaining that your Aunty tithes to her local church on Sunday. It's her money.

[Cameron Reilly]

Dissenter, you are right, which is why I would rather not give them my money in the first place. I havent been back into a Gloria Jeans since this post a year ago.

[pj]

Hi,

I was just googling hillsong and GJ's to try and get the facts on what the connection is between these two and am pleased that I got to this site.

I heard from a friend, who attends hillsong, that there was a youth group night and the priest/pastor was telling the parable of the lady who gave all the money she had ($1 or something.. I've heard this parable myself about 15 years ago..) and so she had given "more than she could afford".

The pastor subsequently asked the youth to give to hillsong "more than they can afford" and apparently once the collection plate started being passed around some kids were throwing in mobile phones! I don't really understand this because what would a church want with a mobile phone?!

I've basically been a little filthy with churches since the day I found out that the priest of a church I was attending flew overseas first class. FIRST CLASS. Perhaps he wanted to give "more than he could afford" to Qantas... ;)

Yeah, I agree with all the prior comments the GJ's situation is dodgy as.. I haven't had a coffee from them in years. I think the bigger problem with GJ's, rather than me not knowing where my $3 goes, is that these religious organisations could be operating as finanicial institutions "offering loans and deposit services to customers but avoiding the strict regulations imposed on commercial banks" (see the article "God's banks to face crackodown" http://www.cathnews.com/news/510/146.php (sorry the link is to Catholic news, I can't find the article elsewhere on the net.. but it's originally from "The Australian" newpaper)).

So it appears that religious organisations could be loaning money (presumably at more competiive interest rates to banks) and then get the profits tax-free.

This is definitely a serious concern. There is an episode of "The Simpsons" where Bart "sells" his soul (a piece of paper with "Bart's soul" written on it) to Milhouse for $5 and tells Milhouse there's no such thing as a soul and the church made it up. Milhouse asks Bart, "why would they lie? what would they have to gain?" and his question is answered by the roaring sound of a money sorter that Reverend Lovejoy is using. I guess that sums it up right there!!

Maybe we should just buy Starbucks.. but perhaps all the profit (or a portion.. maybe even 10%!) goes to America and contributes to Australia's current account deficeit?

Do yourself a favour, just go to your local coffee store and buy a coffee from the owner so he can put his kids through school :)