In reply to simondgee:
I might have guessed the throwaway comment would be the one taken up while the main point is ignored, although to be fair it wasn't worded well so was easily misinterpreted from what I meant to convey.
A minimum wage salary provides only just enough to live on, so with few exceptions qualified professionals should expect and should be paid more if they are to be happy and committed in their work. Exceptions might include:
a. Those using the job short-term as a stepping stone to to something better paid
b. Those using the job simply as a means of putting food on the table while they pursue other interests
c. Those who are tied geographically, perhaps by dependants, and therefore do not have other choices in their field
d. Those for whom the job is genuinely vocational such that very low wages are seen as acceptable
e. Those who have not the wherewithal or the drive to gain higher paid work in the same field
There are probably more that don't come to mind right now.
Assuming the employer wants a committed long-term employee with a passion for the job then options a or b are unlikely to fit the bill.
Option c is an unfortunate consequence of market economies.
Option d is what I suspect the OP is after but is being coy about the religious requirement in the job description as quoted
Option e was what I was referring to in my earlier post that you picked up on.
So in reality by paying peanuts they will exclude a great many qualified professional candidates and the chances of those remaining being intelligent, free-thinking and committed to the job will be greatly reduced.