Just 2 people.

This is a silly post with silly implications, even though I appreciate its rhetorical goals

The really c/mildlyinfuriating fact is there are more empty homes in the US than homeless.

Based on currently available numbers, there are about 31 vacant housing units for every homeless person in the U.S. src

You don’t even need to involve churches. You need to hold individuals and businesses who hoard real estate for profit accountable. (There is also the matter of the logistics of getting homeless people into those homes, but I will not dive into that here.)

I appreciate the sentiment of this post, but please be sure to check your predetermined biases before you use the text of this meme to inform your opinion on policy.

Most homeless are in the big cities, most churches are out in the boonies. The homeless are very unlikely to accept being bussed to a flyover state to sleep in a church in bumfuck nowhere. For a myriad of reasons.

Keep in mind also that a lot of them have a very hard time accepting any help due to past trauma as well.

It's not a situation with a quick fix. Really the first step isn't even ensuring housing for the homeless, it's making sure we don't get more homeless. We likely can't save a subset of today's homeless because they don't want/or won't accept any help that comes with any strings (like no drugs or just they can't trash the place). But we can ensure no-one else ends up on the streets by beefing up mental healthcare and social services.

just 2 people

What does this mean?

1/2 million? seems sort of low

That rate of homelessness seems like a wild underestimate. However, I don't know much about the southern united states other than that they basically export the homelessness they create to other states through bussing programs. So this number might be better calculated considering both the spatial distribution of homelessness and the spatial distribution of churches. With out knowing where the churches are and where the homeless are, the number is a bit beguiling. That being said, it does seem that its the areas with lots of churches that create the conditions for homelessness, and then those areas export the problem they create to other areas (rural red states have been bussing the homeless and other 'undesirables' to metro areas of blue states for decades, rather than fund and operate local solutions).

You're reaching

My home town had four churches and no homeless people. What homeless people are those churches supposed to help?

Meanwhile, in the city I now live in, there's tons of churches and half of them give free food to the homeless every single day, and there's lines going around the block at all of them.

There is no magic bullet that can solve homelessness. Anything proposed must be a part of a larger solution. There are tons of proposals that, if actually done and not half-assed, would help immensely.

They're not spread out like churches though. Here, it might work, we have an insane # of churches per capita and a lot of homeless, but what about LA? No way there are as many churches as homeless there. Same with houses, as someone suggests upthread. There are few vacant spaces here and many who need homes but in any state beginning with the letter I maybe there are thousands of homes and few homeless because they would freeze to death in the winter.

One per church?

ITT: People who don't know homeless people can catch a ride to a different town like anyone else.

I mean, I don't actually think in churches is the right idea, but that's a nitpick, not a gotcha.

I hate the idea of treating homeless like babies. Most of these people got to where they are by choices. If they wanted to stay at the church they probably can. Most churches I know have cots for people down and out. If these people wanted to stay at the church they would have.