[auiya]

If you travel through rural America, it's quite telling to see all the township money spent on churches and government buildings, while the residences and public infrastructure sit in dilapidation. Frequently the people from these areas claim to be fiscally conservative, so one would think there would be more demand for the collective spending they do to be more beneficial to the community, rather than those perpetuating the exploitation.

[Spooky23]

Buildings like firehouses or town offices with police departments attract Federal/State funds for construction and upkeep. People who support their church don't generally share your view that the church is exploiting them.

[wastedhours]

> People who support their church don't generally share your view that the church is exploiting them

True, but it also doesn't mean they're not being exploited.

I choose to believe my employer cares about me, but it doesn't mean they do, and it's likely they might know I think that and use it to their advantage.

I hold nothing against personal faith, but I find it unsettling the balance of wealth across organised religions - seeing the gold opulence centralised at the (likely) expense of largely the poor across a lot of faiths is horrifying.

It might be more of a societal good for a local church to extract money from their congregation than for it to be spent on, say, padding Amazon's pockets, but it doesn't mean it's not taking advantage of said peoples.

Each to their own, but the notion that tithes might be linked to eternal glory or damnation for the giver can hardly make them entirely freely given.

[Spooky23]

I have served on the board of a church-related institution. It doesn't push tithing. The clergy aren't getting rich. Personally, I wouldn't associate with a place pushing tithing, politics, or where the clergy is living an opulent lifestyle. That's just my pov.

It's been a few years, but about 30-35% of the budget was for direct charitable works. They partner with another church to run a soup kitchen, help to house displaced families, and do other stuff like provide flowers to hospice, youth sports, subsidized vacation camps, subsidy for poorer parishes, etc. Another 30-35% was for the parish itself... salaries for the priest, capital spending on the property. The remainder is scholarship money for the school.

YMMV, and there are certainly good and bad places, but IMO, that parish is a net benefit to the community around it. Some of the examples here of rural communities the are over-churched is a symptom of the effects of decline. The rural town I grew up in is 10% smaller than it was 25 years ago, and it is increasingly a bedroom community for a bigger city. Folks who live there try to keep community institutions like churches going, but obviously there comes a point where that isn't sustainable.

[auiya]

> People who support their church don't generally share your view that the church is exploiting them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

[euroclydon]

I've met people, ideologically in the intersection of small government conservatism and Christianity, who believe that healthcare is the responsibility of "The Church" rather than the government. Never mind how the 80,000 - 200,000 disparate churches are supposed to operate 1/5 of the economy.

[francisofascii]

You could argue that is admirable. People choosing to build up the community church at the expense of their own house. I would say the same about secular places, a community park or public square, for example.

[jamesfe]

Can someone source the US Government directly funding the construction of churches?

[deadbunny]

You can't spend money on helping the community, that's basically communism! /s

[luckylion]

The churches are funded by public money?

[simonh]

I think 'Township money' just means the resources of the community.

[luckylion]

Possibly. I guess op has a very different understanding of "collective spending" than people that consider themselves "fiscally conservative".

[auiya]

Collective spending in this case != elective spending. Taxes are compulsory, church tithes are not, but the end result is the same - the exploitation of the lower and middle class.

[luckylion]

There is no "collective spending" when the spending isn't done by "the collective". To argue that "some people spend money, those people are part of the collective, therefore the collective spends that money" just removes all value from the terms. Sure, the "worldwide collective" spends money on everything ...

[maxxxxx]

They are tax deductible and also probably get subsidies from municipalities.