The original poster's analogy to the Church is an apt one and it deserves a great deal of attention on the part of Masons everywhere. Theologically, the idea of the "body" of the Church is an intriguing one. Dating back to the diaspora, it is vital in understanding much of the traditions. When the Temple was destroyed and many leading Church fathers forced out of the country, it became very important to realize that the Church (ecclesia) did not depend on the building but rather vice versa. Centuries later with Romanesque and Gothic architecture, the building became a beautiful REPRESENTATION of the Church beliefs. Seemingly minor details held significance. High reaching towers showed the Plato-influenced idea of looking upward and focusing above on the Supreme Architect. Stained glass windows found use specifically due to the idea that God was Light. This could go on forever. Numbers of pillars had meaning, etc. It's funny that the Catholic Church was anti-Masonic for so long considering these clear similarities and emphasis on architecture as representation of values. It's important, however, to understand that in both cases, emphasis must be put on the word "representation." Still, art and architecture provide a powerful medium for portraying values and because of that, we tend to put a great deal of importance on such things and I don't see a problem with that. I think we should be equally upset at the idea of the destruction or disrepair of an impressive Masonic building as would at the idea of demo-ing the Duomo. It's not the building in and of itself, but the meaning and incredibly meticulous effort put into it. When things like the number of steps or pillars, the color of a wall, the placement of seating etc, actually have meaning, it speaks volume.