In any event, nothing is stopping one from forming one’s own congregation, run along the lines of purely voluntary donations - all you need is a minyan.
Look, I understand that. My aunt is a teacher at a school afffiliated with a Conservative synagogue - I know more or less what they pay her, and it ain’t much. My parents belonged to a synagogue when I was a kid - at least they did while they were still married. After they got divorced, Mom (a nonprofit employee) couldn’t afford it, and hasn’t belonged anywhere since. Dad could afford it, so he did.
I’ve seen synagogues, even ones that say they are socially progressive, talk the talk but refuse to walk the walk, and it stinks. (I don’t really have a dog in this fight - these days I’m as secular as they come, and have no plans to join any synagogue whatsoever.) But if the Jewish community is so worried about the increasing secularization of American Jewry, especially young people who are less likely to be financially established enough to cough up $3k for synagogue membership, this is one fabulous way for them to shoot themselves in the foot.
When my father suicided, I got one official communication from the Methodist church he had belonged to all his life, and which I’d grown up in.
It was a dunning notice for his unpaid pledge.
:mad: :mad:
Fair enough.
But here’s the problem: a purely voluntary system doesn’t work well. As noted above, my guys, the Roman Catholics, are part of a large organization and can re-direct resources where needed, with wealthier parishes contributing to the diocese and needier parishes getting assistance from the diocese. That model doesn’t work here.
In addition, the key element for Catholics – indeed, for most Christian services – is the “pass the collection basket” method. This is simply unworkable for Jews, if for no other reason than the prohibition against carrying money on the Sabbath. (I know Reform Jews see that as more of a guideline 
, but even so, to flout the restriction in temple itself is just not going to fly.)
So SOME system is needed. I agree flat fees are unfair, but many temples have membership categories, based on age and family size/status.
But I’ve never heard of a temple that wouldn’t work with someone who was strapped but wnated to continue their association. A friend of mine was Brotherhood President the same year I was Grand Knight of my K of C council, and he and I used to get togther after our respective meeting nights and discuss membership challenges and approaches, so I have at least some insight on possible strategies…
Why don’t you visit your rabbi and start in on how mercy is a virtue, and that whatever he chooses to forgive out of your payments will be repaid tenfold in paradise. Then offer to donate 10% of every paycheck once you start work again, and remind him that however little you can contribute, it doesn’t matter because the material world will pass. Just keep at it until you Catholic him down.
Oh, and just a shout-out to remind everyone that we atheists pay no dues, no tithes, and no “voluntary” (as in “really fucking strongly encouraged”) contributions. We don’t pass the plate.
Say what you want about atheism. It’s free! 
Didn’t most people attending Sabbath services drive there? Wouldn’t that break the rule against lighting a fire on the Sabbath? Why then would they be so shy about passing the collection plate?
Sometimes it’s funny where people decide to hang their hat.
Oh, I don’t thnk that’s fair. It’s not about whether members of the congregation would be willing to ignore the prohibition against carrying money on the sabbath, it’s that it wouldn’t be right for the synagogue to set up their whole funding system in a way that is contrary to Jewish law. If I were Jewish, I would find it outrageous if my synagogue did that.
In my area at least (and keep in mind I’m not even a little Jewish), they walk to services, actually. I see them every Saturday walking to and from services.
Exactly. Perhaps most people drive, but the synagogue didn’t mandate it, or even encourage it. You want to break the law, it’s your problem.
That’s right…that’s why synagogues are in neighborhoods (as Aangelica points out, many Jewish folks walk to services). If they built the building out on the turnpike, then you might have an analogy.
What, atheists don’t have daycare, don’t have weddings or funerals? 
That stuff often costs money - and it is in part what dues pay for.
Sure, if you don’t count the costly tears of the weeping baby Jesus.
Nope, we’re all unmarried, childless immortals with no religious proscriptions again premarital sex. It’s the good life, I tell ya!
Except for the apparent inflexibility of the fee structure, is this very different from churches that require tithing? $3000 is 10% of $30,000, which is actually a relatively low income to be basing a tithe on. Now, admittedly, there would perhaps be more justice and/or mercy in a more tiered structure, or even a simple 10% based on current income. But the existence of the dues (even if not actually CALLED that) isn’t terribly shocking or unheard of for Christian churches, either.
Well, it is comparatively cheaper (except for the child-related outputs)…simple justice-of-the-peace wedding, quick and relatively cheap cremation funeral (no elaborate services to pay for, no burial plot to pay for). And, as you noted, we don’t even have to pay for a justice-of-the-peace to marry us to have sex!
Last I heard, Unitarianism was free, except they may have put in a nominal charge to pay for the metal detectors. 
Hmmm…$3000 a year, that’s almost 60 bucks a week! Is there free parking? Seems like you could golf and have a couple beers for a lot less.
I think that it would be great to have a progressive synagogue where people who did not have the means could pay whatever they could.
Problem is getting those who do have the means to agree to pay the dues for such people, rather than (say) forming their own congregation.
It just seems to me that there is an obvious reason that the “pay what you can” model isn’t more prevelent - that by an large it doesn’t work very well, as unless some government or athourity exists to force those with money to subsidize those without - they would prefer not to. A congregation that attempted to increase the dues on the wealthy so that it could offer the same services - daycare, daturday school, marriages, etc. - to those without the means to pay their share, would quickly lose many of those to another congregation which did not; plus, what is to stop large numbers of those who can’t pay for these services from joining - increasing the dues on those who can still further?
Now, a congregation isn’t like a Gym or a Dinner Club, there is some sense of community there as well - so it should I think be willing to offer to make exceptions for long-time members, where the rest of the membership will be willing to pay - like members of the Dope sponsoring each other. But I for one do not see this system as “stinking” so much as “reflecting an unfortunate reality” - that this stuff is expensive.
I’ve never joined a synagogue. I go to services sometimes, and nothing else. I make contributions as I can.
Do Unitarians have buildings they meet in?
Not to mention accumulation of resources over a very long time - wasn’t St. Paul’s in the Vatican paid for by the sale of indulgences?