Disagree. There are plenty of more gaudy and commercialised places that ban photography completely.
I am not at all religious, but I recognise and respect that others are and to these people, churches etc are places of quiet spiritual contemplation and commune with their god & invariably by these types, donated to in the collection plate or honesty box. Why should their quiet and calm be disturbed by people like me or worse like the selfish OP gumps taking selfies and mouthing off about it if there is no quid-pro-quo and recompense. Life is expensive now and places that attract interest and can't / don't close themselves off to the wandering public have every right to impose whatever rules they wish within the confines of their building.
Edit: I think Churches are places where people should be able to come and go for free because they may well be there for their spiritual needs not simply as architecture tourists, a blanket admission fee penalises the devout and willing to donate against the rest of us in there cos its raining and cheaper than Starbucks or just after a few photos
Not sure what I pressed but the edit bit appeared as a new post.
But spoiling these devout people's peace and quiet is ok if the church can make some profit form it?
Ban it if they feel it will compromise spirituality, they are a church after all...(I would totally understand that approach) but they won't, because that just misses an opportunity to turn a coin.
if the policy proves successful then it will be adopted commercially and we'll all be paying a fee to take a photograph in a bus or a train, or perhaps if we are just stood outside a building that the owner feels can draw a crowd.
Plenty of places do ban photography but this is usually to protect security or copyright...churches are supposed to be free for all to enjoy...and this just isn't.
Churches, especially architecturally significant ones most likely to try this approach, have plenty of ways to bring in an income commercially, charging for a memory is absurd.
