The God Delusion V - Money, money, money
Jul 15th, 2007 by Michael Krahn
Dawkins suggests we abandon the promotion of religion as grounds for charitable status. I can’t say I altogether disagree with him, but his reasoning I do disagree with.
“The benefits of this to society would be great,” he says, “Especially in the United States, where the sums of tax-free money sucked in by churches, and polishing the heels of already well-heeled televangelists, reaches levels that could fairly be describes as obscene.”
I wasn’t aware that by some secretly nefarious network of financial back doors and envelopes labeled with secret codes, my charitable giving ultimately ended up further heeling the likes of Oral Roberts and Benny Hinn. Surely I should have been responsible enough to ask the financial officer of my church to ensure my giving was used for things like helping the poor, hosting the community, and generally making people’s lives better. But wait, that is where my money goes.
I do get his point, but his brush is too broad. Like Dawkins, the excesses of some televangelists disgust me, but they are the equivalent of rock stars in the culture and as such are the exception to the rule. The rule is – in the music industry as well the religion industry (for lack of a better word) – for every rock star there are 1000 or more independents working for the love of it. I know because my dad was one who toiled in the trenches, sacrificing an auto industry job of 17 years to become a pastor, making less than his 20-year-old son who was two years into his career at a lower paying factory. I have plenty more stories of people who gave shunned the very thing Dawkins accuses them of pursuing.
So we’re back to making flashpoints into paints and using wide brushes on everyone within reach. But this money-lust is a common accusation and so it deserves further thought. I cannot speak except from personal experience, and in my experience most ministers are not getting rich – not even close, and accusations to the contrary only inspire further battles involving naming the names of who’s bad on the ‘other team’.
“The love of money is the root of all evil.” Not the money itself, but the love of it. In so many cases to mention money in the same breath as religion is considered tantamount to passing wind at a dinner party. You might be surprised to learn that making a living from the gospel is not against the instruction of the gospel itself. Milking it is, earning a living is not.
This is Part V in a series on Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion. For more posts on this topic go to my Richard Dawkins page.
subscribe
Dawkins’ use of broad-brush strokes is all too common. Take, for example his mis-characterization of dualism. He starts out innocent enough, saying that a dualist recognizes a distinction between matter and mind. Then, he accuses Dualists (all of them) of believing the mind is a disembodied spirit that could leave the body, that mental illness is demon possession, and that Dualists “personify inanimate physical objects at the slightest opportunity, seeing spirits and demons even in waterfalls and clouds.”
This, again, appears to be typical Dawkins-style rhetoric, which only works if you are totally clueless about the subject matter being discussed. His repeated use of obvious logical fallicies is leading me to the conclusion that he is either ignorant, incredibly foolish, delusional or intentionally deceptive. Or, perhaps a combination…
So, why not claim that every Christian supports the excesses of a few? Why not claim that it’s Christianity’s goal to drive the world into a second dark age? Truth and honesty do not appear to be priorities in whatever evolved moral system Dawkins holds.
I am now just past the halfway point of the book and reading the chapter where Dawkins picks apart various Old Testament stories. Now this I find a bit more challenging and this is what I expected but didn’t find in the first half.
“I have plenty more stories of people who gave shunned the very thing Dawkins accuses them of pursuing.” (Mike)
And that’s the problem with most conversations - generalizations - but I think he is developing a starting point for a convo. Now we all know this type of ‘get rich’ Christian faith is actually not the one Jesus lived - of this we are 100% certain (so the founder’s teachings are also some what against the richness gospel)….we also a lot of Christians not getting rich from preaching the gospel. But we do know some - even if just on tv.
Dawkins goes too far and always says ‘eradicate religion’ as the answer - which is so far fetched an idea. Why not approach the Christian realm and ask them to keep their ministers accountable - and if these minsters do not respond - start a campaign about their actions in their churches and networks that host them…I mean there has to be way? That’s what I like about the convo Dawkins starts - it is talking about accountability but his answer is so lop-sided.
Dawkins often abandons reason simply by saying that since religion is unreasonable he can’t possibly comment. I suppose this is logically consistent for him but it doesn’t do much for the dialog.
You are correct - he is interested in eradicating religion, not reforming it.
Dawkins is a terrific rhetorician, I’ll give him that.
What I will not give him is that the existence of Benny Hinn disproves Christianity. That would be like saying Jeffrey Dahmer disproves atheism.
Yes, Hinn and his ilk are troubling. But there are ample resources that can and are being used to critique his “ministry” from inside the Christian tradition.
I agree there are, just that obviously they are not effective. Even with ample criticism, he still lives in a 10 million dollar “parsonage” after all.
Do you have any suggestions for effectively curbing the excesses of his type?
Check out the Wall Watcher’s website (http://www.wallwatchers.org). It’s purported to be a Christian ministries watchdog keeping tabs on some televangelists and other Christian ministries.
Greetings Michael,
I saw your comment over on winston’s world. Don’t know if you followed his link to my post on Dawkins, but there were a series of them and I’ve just put a label on ‘em to tie ‘em together, http://evildrclam.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20God%20Delusion. I’m looking forward to reading through the rich veins of material you have here, but really ought to be working now! ;)
I realise this is an old thread but I really want to add something.
I wasn’t aware that by some secretly nefarious network of financial back doors and envelopes labeled with secret codes, my charitable giving ultimately ended up further heeling the likes of Oral Roberts and Benny Hinn.
In almost every country I’ve heard of religious institutions enjoy tax exempt status without having to show any financial statements as to the use of the money. So unless you live in a country that does not do this, yes your money is ending up with religious fundamentalists and there is absolutely no guarantee that the money that you give ends up helping anyone else but the church itself.
Studies have shown that the percentage of donations actually reaching the cause of a goodwill is the lowest for religious organizations (can’t site a reference, the research is out there).
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/charities/checklists/books-e.html
Although you can’t say this guarantees that all money goes where it says it does. There are always ways around it, right?