Interfaith Design

I agree with the earlier posts about conservative attitudes in religious institutions and that people deeply connect with the imagery of a place, which can be, and is often, expressed by literally copying things that "look" like church to the end users. I agree with John's point that the Jewish community often designs spaces that do not use the imagery of church, but rather evoke a feeling of spirituality/reverence in their architecture. I'm thinking particularly of the Temple Emanu-El in Dallas, TX (Google search for images).
Though the literal copies of religious imagery is absent in this example, it still has formal elements of a worship space. It is a functional basilica, having the focus in the front of the space, meant to encourage lecture rather than dialogue between the users of the space and is strewn throughout with subtle references to key understandings in the Jewish faith. And like some early Christian (circa Justinian), the volume of the space is ambiguously defined. It is almost unimportant where the floors, walls, and ceilings meet. The point of all this, is that the architectural expression a congregation relates best to depends (in some degree) on their ideas of religion and their perception of the way they "ought" relate to God. Some people go to church because it's church, it ought to look like church, smell like church, quack like church. Others go for a religious experience which is intangible in physical form, church tent revivals, meditation, enlightenment, prahdakshina etc. So, to address the original post directly, I believe that most American Christian congregations have an understanding in their religion that ties them to certain elements of formal church architecture. Whereas a congregation where the relationship with God is more mysteriously viewed, some Jewish congregations, practitioners of Buddhism, even some Eastern Orthodox, might be more open to non-formal expressions of their religious understanding in their architecture.
Sorry for the stream-of-consciousness reply, hopefully it's not a jumble.

Garry, I completely agree with you. I am actually Eastern Orthodox ( like Greeks) and I always wondered the same. I spoke with a lot of priests throughout my life and helped renovate some churches, and I think the plain conservative stand has a huge impact. Personally, I beleive it is a very fake approach, since we rarely construct buildings out of 2' stone bearing walls, so it comes to a bear mimic of something that it should be.
I founded however that Catholic church as well as a number of other churches here in the US and Europe still allow contemporary design.

Richard, I think Garry Hit both issues, One with Religion as a topic, it is very close to the users heart and life experiences, so the board/elders, etc want to rule on the conservative side/ politically correct and remain with status quo -= however I offer one observation, the Jewish community has often designed places which evoke the religious experience without all the icons, statues, etc. we associate with religious facilities. The second point Recognition of the building as ICONs for architecture we get the design aesthetics of pushing the envelope, but the issue is dealing with the potential reserved nature of our clients - if you build it they will come - I love Thorncrown Chapel by Jim Reed. Eureka Springs, AR John. out

Well, I'm just a layman here, so this is just an opinion, but I think it has to do with two things. Frst, most religious institutions are very conservative, so they're not likely to embrace change. Second, recognizability. A steepled building with a cross on top is immedately recognized as a church.
Just a thought. And a test of posting a reply to a blog post.