I wouldn't worry about your 'misprints' too much Bushbred, George & Co *preach for profit* just as ?well? as as the miscreants subject of Alan Matheson's article.

Today Iraq, tomorrow Iran - and with a sense of deja vu, it will probably turn out to be a 'just war' against Weapons of Mass Destruction - all in the name of God, 'truth, justice and the American way'.

Methinks dubya is spittin chips tho', his 16 intelligence agencies have outed and said it is all a furphy, since 2003 no less!

TLTR,
You accuse me of thinking they must be innocent because they’re Christian.

No. I am saying that we shouldn’t presume that they are guilty because they are Christian, or because they’re rich, or successful, or famous, or on the telly, or have strange tastes in bathroom décor. That is TPS.

Neither am I against transparency and accountability. These are important.

But I am a little wary that Matheson might have mounted his high horse for theological reasons as much as for financial propriety. He seems to want to tar the Australian church with an American brush. Unlike the C of E or the RC, the Pentecostals in Australia are truly indigenous, as they have no organised or administrative links with overseas churches.

Let these guys on the box be judged by the Rule of Law (or even the Word of God) but not by small mindedness.

It’s the small mindedness of some that says Cliff Richard, despite selling millions of records worldwide, should turn up to his concerts in a beat up Volkswagen (or possibly break down before getting there), rather than in his Rolls, just because he calls himself a Christian. Or the people who think that there is something unscrupulous or dishonorable going on when the Queensland Gospel band, Newsboys, turn up on the BRW list of richest Aussie entertainers when their CDs are top of the US gospel charts.

The majority of Australians are non-religious though we tend to believe that to live our lives according to the 10 commandments is the correct way to go. It is churches who all "preach for their own profit" who turn most of us away from religion. It is a fact that it is very difficult to realize while within a church, however when one extracts oneself and can look from the outside in it is abundentley clear. Re the book "Jesus the Man" the churches practice mass mind control of the vunerable to preach for their own profit.

Ho Hum is right about P.T. Barnum.
The entertaining con man is as much a part of the American character as the puritan, the entrepreneur or the hedonist.

Some TV evangelists seem to roll all of these elements into one.
Precisely what makes them interesting.

Madonna is paid millions for being conflicted and "interesting".
Why not Tammy Faye Bakker?
(If anybody knocks Tammy, I'll punch 'em.
And I've never even *seen* her show!
Tammy's probably the only person who has ever made me feel "Sympathy for the UnDevil").

If Coca Cola can make billions selling flavoured sugar water, then why not Tammy Faye Bakker?
"Mega-Bucks for Jesus" is no more objectionable than "Mega-Bucks for Flavoured Sugar Water".

All I object to is the tax exemption.

This is what encourages fraudsters and cults.
Remove the exemption and you'd still get a few, but at least they'd pay some back to the communities they take from.
Just like Coca Cola and Madonna do.
Many schools and hospitals have been built on the proceeds of candy water and cone bras.

TurnRightThenLeft: "How on earth can you actually advocate a course of action that turns a blind eye to improper behaviour?"

Improper?
Ever heard of 'innocent until proven guilty'?

I say turn a blind eye to everybody's finances (companies, churches, political parties), just *tax* them all the same!

Shonga, don't get too upset:
"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun", Ecclesiastes 1:9.
Especially on Sunday morning TV.
But who's watching?

There are good Biblical reasons for minimizing any sign or trappings of 'richness'.. because it simply goes against the whole thrust of the Gospel.. and the whole New Testament.

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Mat 19:24)

Luke 10:3

Go! I am sending you out like lambs among wolves. 4Do not take a purse or bag or sandals; and do not greet anyone on the road.

5"When you enter a house, first say, 'Peace to this house.' 6If a man of peace is there, your peace will rest on him; if not, it will return to you. 7Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages."

"Give us this day, our daily bread"....er... not our camel train or corporate Jet!

ON THE DAY that someone says "God made me rich" you will know that falsehood is speaking.

BUT... if a person becomes wealthy due to business expertise and entrepreneurship... and then passes on as much as they can.. and doesn't make a song and dance about it..

Matt 6:2

"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

...it will show in their life and God will be truly glorified.

Boaz. I agree with much you say about charity and I’m pleasantly surprised at your criticism of Mother Theresa :)
I blame the Vatican also.

People who make donations to these greedy organisations do not have as pure an intention as the people who donate to genuine charities, such as the Salvation Army, that are actually out to help the needy. (I exclude the people who’ve been mislead into believing that these organisations are proper charities).

Benny Hinn (and other prosperity preachers) encourages people who cannot afford a big donation to make credit card donations and falsely promises that they’ll be rewarded by receiving (from God?) a multiple of their donation and even inclines that the more you donate, the more chance there is that your wish (e.g. of being cured from disease) comes true.

This is encouraging people to donate for the wrong reason: people should not give with the intention of receiving something better in return.
True giving is done with the intention of helping someone in need, not to ultimately benefit yourself.
IMHO, the ability of helping someone in need feels as a gift in itself.
Whoever has the right intention to help the poor or the needy would NOT want to see their donation go towards financing some false cult leader’s wealthy lifestyle.

Even though I do not believe in a god, I can imagine from a Christian’s perspective that it’s sad that prosperity gospel/cult leaders succeed in making people believe that Jesus will help them after they donate.
Should these prosperity organisations including Hillsong and Church of Scientology qualify for tax exemptions? Do they genuinely classify as non-profit or benevolent organisations?

BTW what people do with their money AFTER THEY PAY TAX is their business. Madonna. or other celebrities mentioned. pay their taxes. What I am concerned about is pastors or cult leaders who ‘donate’ their salary back to the ‘church’ (this happens at Hillsong) so on paper they have no income. Still, they are able to live a life of luxury. They should be scrutinised as much as any other organisation! And taxed, too.