Summary
Churches across the U.S. are grappling with dwindling attendance and financial instability, forcing many to close or sell properties.
The Diocese of Buffalo has shut down 100 parishes since the 2000s and plans to close 70 more. Nationwide, church membership has dropped from 80% in the 1940s to 45% today.
Some churches repurpose their land to survive, like Atlanta’s First United Methodist Church, which is building affordable housing.
Others, like Calcium Church in New York, make cutbacks to stay open. Leaders warn of the long-term risks of declining community and support for churches.
Too bad its not baptist.
If a church can’t be supported through its active membership, it should close. Better no church at all than one sold out to the world, making money from investments and forgetting their true purpose.
Goes hand in hand with a similar story I heard about a month ago regarding a shortage of pastors. Apparently it’s so bad, quite a few have to lead sermons at multiple churches and many simply skip some weeks. Also less trained people taking up the role, whatever that means anyway.
Honestly, get ratio’d, cultists.
IIUC, some are coming from developing countries.
Pit of vipers closes due to insufficient snakebite volunteers.
Jesus christ I thought r/atheism was bad. Anything religion related gets you ppl foaming at the mouth
Should be noted that the Roman Catholic Church required individual parishes to give their churches and the property on which they stand to the church. If a parish refused, they faced excommunication. It’s all about raping kids and a money grab all the way up.
The internet is killing God but giving birth to a new age of conspiracy theorists.
So, not much has changed.
praise whatever!
fucking good.
Sad that public spaces are disappearing but relying on funding from the ultra wealthy has been the death knell for christian churches.
And they say there’s no such thing as good news.
Now the religious companies that remain are all merging together or being bought out by larger religious companies. They change their names to some douchey name that sounds like a shitty christian rock band and franchise. Somehow they’re still allowed to be non-profits despite being so much for-profit.
No, don’t close your damn doors, open them up to the homeless. Make these useless buildings good for something!
Great news! Maybe we can finally tax these cults as well.
Considering scientology has their tendrils in a fair bit of Hollywood, that might actually backfire on government coffers. If they demand their members strike, the film industry is going to be in for pain.
No way would SAG strike over Scientology getting taxed. Scientology are parasites and we’d all be better off without them.
Not SAG, just the cultists. There’s enough of them in prominent roles that it would cause financial damage (including to themselves), delays, and problems.
If it’s not a real strike, then they’re replaceable. A “bye Felicia” sort of situation.
That’s easier said than done when it’s a lead actor refusing to work during filming. They’ll be breaching a contract, sure, but replacing them is going to waste money and time in recasting, rescheduling, refilming, etc.
Would they actually do it, knowing they’re in for a multimillion dollar lawsuit? Probably. The Cult of Scientology practices excommunication, and it’s a strong motivator for indoctrinees.
Taxing them would force more closures. Do it.
No, we don’t want to tax them. Remember “no taxation without representation”. Taxing them means allowing their influence in government.
Not to say that they aren’t already influencing our government, but taxing them just opens up the floodgates for it to be done on an official level.
No representation without taxation
We tax businesses. We shouldn’t be allowing businesses or churches to influence government. I believe “no taxation without representation” is meant only to be applied to people.
Remember “no taxation without representation”.
I do, it referred to people deprived of a vote.
Houses are taxed. There is no branch of government representing houses.
That’s the point. They are influencing the government by picking political sides, which officially disqualifies them from tax exempt status but that’s something that’s never been enforced.
Does it? What makes them different from explicitly political nonprofits? Or do those not get tax-exempt status?
Good.
