maesro, I think your question is very relevant.

like some have said here, there are many ways to be religious. Unfortunately, I think the english language (or dictionary.com), needs a broader definition.

other thoughts . . .
Could have Michealangelo produced the Sistine Chapel, The Pieta, and Medici Chapel without a relationship with Medici?

If the question is on architects and "organized" religions, well there are examples where I have trouble accepting this as a compatable practice.
One example would be the Jewish temple in Jerusalem which was destroyed by Titus. Muslims have worshipped there for a long time, and have their own mosque on the site. While I understand that this conflict might be irrelevant in the discussion, I do think it is relevant because architecture is a very symbolic aspect of it. This conflict is bigger than architecture, and one can easily argue that the "architects" or builders of these structures had no intention for their people to grief so much over their creation.

so where the hell am I going with this. well, hmm. I think mewstreamlinedmodel makes an interesting point: I'm against us.

I am not against us entirely. I just have a difficult time coming to terms with the divisions that organized religion has caused amonst humans. I have a difficult time coming to terms with the consequences of culture and civilization in regards to this planet.

I have a problem coming to terms with it because I love my culture, and the traditions which I celebrate. Also, while I was raised catholic, I have not been catholic for a long long time. The crusades and indulgances took care of that. This does not mean that I would discredit anything because the inspiration of the work is primarily religious (in the organized sense).

Long story short, I hope people have things that inspire them to create. I guess I don't see how someone could create without intent, without inspiration. My personal beliefs [hypothetical] might not agree with something like organized religion. But because of the conflict I have with it, it undoubtedly affects my thoughts, therefore my design. this is personal, whatever anyone else does is personal to them. must stop writing. . .stttttoop writiiiing

maestro:

I think your "art enters in" quote from Corbu goes to a subtle conceptual framework issue in your initial question. I have always made a distinction between "religion" and "the spiritual". Religion refers to man made institutions of faith characterized by a specific cultural set of moral and behavoral rules and mores. Sprituality is a personally and deeply felt connection with a larger reality without seeking or requiring a complete and unabiguous understanding of the workings or nature of this reality.

It is possible to be religious without being spirtual, as it is possible to be spiritual and not be religious.

I assume that you haven't made that distinction in your initial question, but I would suggest that Corbu's reference was more spiritual than religious. Artistic inspiration can be thought of as a type of spirituality. and in the context of your initial question (by my definitions) perhaps this is why these topics are not brought up in Architecture schools. Inspiration is not easy to teach, nor is it easy to peceive as part of historical analysis.

On the other hand "religion" (again, my definition), was discussed frequently, whether in the context of Pagen Temple iconography or discussing the liturgical funtions of a sacristy in a Catholic Church.

Not an answer ot your question but perhaps will help further the discussion.

I always liked studying religious architecture in school . . .

somebody please tell me, what the hell does religion mean?

without religion does the bunny still wear a pancake
on his head?...or does the bunny wear a pancake due
to lack of religion?

If the bunny is Jewish - it becomes optional. Otherwise he is just a silly bunny.