Ther are many churches who's services are open in which it is very easy to go and observe what is being said.
What about thwe churches that gather in closed doors? Do you think that these groups should be treated different? if so why or why not?
Uhhh... no? In all seriousness, I am not sure that any church or house of worship needs to be treated differently by the world for any reason. Naturally, we are making the assumptions that these forms of worship do not violate any laws or established codes of social conduct. With this being true, some houses of worship are more open to the outside world than others. This is not a particular reason to treat them differently than others. A person's religious worship should not be treated as a popularity contest. In the final analysis, the question makes the presumption that the ability for someone not associated with the religion to be able to "understand" that worship is more important than all else. While this might be a reality that some religions have to face, it might not be one that should there. The relationship between an individual and their faith is probably one of the most sacred elements of consciousness because it is "sacred." For us, as outsiders, to be able to pass judgment on it because of "openness" might not be very effective for it is the ultimate decision of the relationship between the individual and their house of worship that holds the most amount of relevance.
Treated differently by whom? Do you mean that the government should treat them differently? If that is the case, then no, I do not think the government should treat them differently.
The reason I say this is that government should not care what views a religion is promoting -- that is the essence of freedom of religion. It is really not the government's business to know what a religious congregation is being told. If they are being told "bad" things, that's okay, as long as they don't act on it.
So really, I do not think the government needs to know what is said inside a church.