Mildly Infuriating

I don't follow what's silly here. These motherfuckers are not taxed and also not obligated to give back and that should matter. Tax them, would be the obvious solution

You don’t even need to involve churches.

There are plenty of valid complaints about (many) American religious institutions, but the constant shoe-horning in of complaints about religion in unrelated posts that I see on Lemmy comes across as bitter and myopic.

(There is also the matter of the logistics of getting homeless people into those homes, but I will not dive into that here.)

And caring for them, because a lot of them can't function as normal members of society for whatever reason. The real estate is only one piece of this. But yeah, if people were willing to pay for all that, it wouldn't be a problem. As it is, it's always the next guy's problem.

Mmm I think you’re missing one of the core points of this though: churches have historically and traditionally offered and been used as sanctuaries, often by the poor and downtrodden in a society. In the US these days, you don’t see nearly as much of that. It’s more about evangelism and dogmatism and prosperity gospel. Christians in the US demonstrably doesn’t care that much about poor people these days.

More broadly: as someone who was raised Christian but is now a staunch atheist, I and many others would have far fewer issues with Christians if they would actually fucking practice what their religion preaches instead of whatever some MAGApastor tells you that Supply Side Jesus says.

Yeah, this was my first thought as well as soon as I read the image. We have tons and tons of literally empty housing units. Even if you take away the ones that are only temporarily vacant while searching for a new tenant, you're still left with a bunch of housing units that sit empty, waiting to be flipped for a profit by real estate investors.

Churches "sponsor" people in other countries all the time. They could do the same for two people in the nearest city, they don't have to force people to relocate.

There is actually an easy fix - build houses and give them to people. I remember when "Habitat for Humanity" was so much more prominent in churches.

I can't tell if you are purposefully taking the post literally just to be able to shoot it down... But I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt

Just think of how many homeless people would actually refuse to live in any of these Mega mansions

Or better yet, imagine what these "churches" could do with the literal millions they spend in mansions and private jets to help the homeless... You know, if they actually care about that and were not just tax avoidance operations

They have a hard time "accepting help" because as often as not; it isn't really help.

Its libs jacking themselves off with the monkey paw; doing awful shit using nice words so they can feel good while being assholes.

Sure you get a room and three meals a day! No pets, must detox first, curfew but also you must have a job, and also dont mind the bars haha yes we do have to lock you in.

I mean, even before you get as far as the opinion of the homeless, most churches aren't going to want to host two high-needs, possibly substance-addicted people from the big city in their atrium ("think of the children!"), which is the point of this.

It's a situation that absolutely has a quick fix, just not a super cheap quick fix. It's far easier to not formally address it, and leave the cost on them and whoever happens to be around them. There's more than enough resources out to fix it if there was the political will.

If every church houses two homeless people, no more homeless people.

Maybe OP believes every town in the US has exactly 1 church and 2 homeless people and is mildly infuriated that the church doesn't allow the 2 homeless people to live there?

They're implying that there are two homeless people for every church and that every church should house two homeless people to solve homelessness. Not agreeing with OP, just trying to answer your question.