Axiological Lesson For The Day :-)
There are two branches of axiology, ethics and aesthetics. Ethics is right and wrong ("charity is right, stealing is wrong"); aesthetics is like and dislike ("I like club soda, I dislike Mountain Dew").
One of the hazards of having a society where all religion is voluntary and all religious institutions have to go out for business is that there is often a conflation of the ethical and the aesthetic.
On the laity side, people often choose churches on the basis of aesthetics, what the sanctuary looks like, what music is in the service, the level of liturgical folderol (to use a WFTD from this week :> ). This is because the congregant is going to believe that s/he wants to believe--at best, because s/he is led by God to believe, at worst because s/he wants to believe what s/he wants to believe.
On the clerical side, this creates a dilemma: what compromises for the sake of marketing are aesthetic and adiaphora, and what compromises would be ethical and leading to heterodoxy or heresy. There is, e.g., a huge difference between a church deciding to compromise with society and allow altar girls, or whether to compromise with society and support Planned Parenthood. A church that compromises with society on Planned Parenthood does not deserve to be called Christian, regardless of what other label it carries. But whether a church has only altar boys, or allows altar girls, or only the clergy, or maybe even decides not to have an altar--though I'm willing to quibble on that one--that is the type of question where the dilemma of American voluntary churches arises.
As always, you live in an anti-Catholic dream world. Dream on, friend.