. To tar all religious organizations and their member churches as being alike in wanting your goods is no different than considering all non-religious people as being the same because a few horde what they have.
The people in question in my comment aren't using the money for anything but themselves. It is purely used to sustain the church and presumably pay off the $2M costs for the building which is nicer than the corporate hut I'm sitting in right now. Because they are family, I have insight into what is really going on, and I know exactly how charitable these people are. In their terms, they are simply sinners, in my terms they're just self-serving hypocrites who have lost touch with the value of their institution to the society that protects it. But this is anecdotal, not everyone is as bad as the noise in my ear. By the same token, a few churches that do behave properly does not necessarily validate the institution they are based on.
Yes, Jesus may approve of charity but not all followers of Jesus are charitable. Even Jesus had to recognize this, repeatedly, to his own followers, while he was still alive.
And while I reject the notion of God as being more useful than not to society until such time as He comes down from on High and removes all doubt about his policies, one reason I reject many christian religions is summed up by your comment: "If you're going to be an atheist and reject God, it really doesn't matter if you adhere to the Christian rule set or not. Christian works won't get you to heaven. Living "right" won't get you to heaven."
If I were going to be a religiophobe, which I am not, I would argue this comment entirely removes all value of religion from society, and instead puts it in the status of a cult. I would actively seek to abolish such institutions as being utterly devoid of merit and an active drain on their environment. I would remove all tax protections, I would force them to pay taxes both income and property, and do my best to render their income stream imposible. I would argue a God who demands fealty above action, blind faith above reasoned discourse, is not a God we should follow, even if he exists, even if he is omnipotent. This to me is the definition of the anti-God, a force of nature we may die in vain trying to fight, but which we should fight with all due passion. As far as I am concerned you have described Satan himself.
I do not believe in such beings though, and instead believe that your religion was founded in an attempt to help us get along well, and has been co-opted by politics and "size of my church" in a more profound way than you pointed out. I think if we pick and choose what parts of religion are useful, and what are not (dogma) they do still have significant value, or at least we can debate the values and make a determination. Further, I think most adherents do listen to the useful bits and let them outweigh the dogma, much of the time. Removing the religious dogma from your statement, I will distill it to "There is no morality without religion", a statement I disagree with, and can provide support for, but which we will probably be unable to find common ground on. If you tried hard, however, I believe your greatest argument would simply be that a non-religious basis of morality is sound academically and has strong secular merit, but is not comprehensible to "the average joe", and further without fear of the Almighty and the realization that right and wrong are social constructs, we may see a rise in anti-social behavior. I have no response to that, it might be true, I hope it isn't, because we're going to hit this issue soon enough.