Of course it is. I said:
"People can do whatever they want to support whatever religion they wish, but to spend millions upon millions and millions of dollars for a place of worship instead of being a bit more frugal and helping those in need strikes me as having their priorities screwed up."
They can either
give their money for building the immense cathedrals or
they can build less expensive structures and give more of it to charitable works.
Yes, there is a long tradition of pouring money into great medieval cathedrals rather than using part of it to help the needy; a tradition that has obviously continued to this day.
As is everybody.
Which is why I never said so. I simply feel that it could give more of its vast amounts of money to charity rather than erect buildings to satiate its collective ego.
Most importantly, I live in the USA where I'm guaranteed the right to free speech, and as such can freely criticize anything I choose.
I choose my battles as I see fit. And in contrast to secular uses of money such as on sports venues, whose supporters have never pretended to be particularly charitable, supporters of religion do, and often delight in pointing out their deep concern for the poor and disadvantaged, and how they help them.