The average pastor with a master’s degree makes about 30% less than someone with an equivalent level of degree who works in a different field. In other words, if they were in it for the money, all they’d have to do is put the same amount of work into another line of work and they’d be virtually guaranteed to make more.

Although you can’t say this guarantees that all money goes where it says it does. There are always ways around it, right?

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).

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! ;)

Do you have any suggestions for effectively curbing the excesses of his type?

You are correct – he is interested in eradicating religion, not reforming it.

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.

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.

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.