One surface level comment. As a non-religious person, I have always found the distinction between buildings for different types of religions as being somewhat artificial. Sure, they have different architectural styles, but they all have a similar purpose in my mind.
So a mosque is a church is a temple, on some level.
Are you sure they don't have a number of similarities?
They are different religions with different beliefs and practices. The architectural differences are vast and mostly obvious the minute you walk in. Mosques and churches both have a number of unique elements like the mihrab, confessional booths, pews, floor carpets, altars, and so on and so forth. These all translate into vastly different experiences both during worship and in everyday life. For example, Catholic churches have confessional booths facilitating confessions to priests. Mosques don’t, as (as far as I know) Muslims believe more in direct confession to God, not to an intermediary. You can see how this would result in a different social structure.
The experience of attending mosque on Friday is quite different from Sunday mass. This is intra-religion as well; compare a New England church with St. Peter’s in Rome, for example.
Sure, there are some similarities, but this is such a broad distinction that I question its usefulness, and dividing the world into secular and religious (architecture) is a very recent phenomenon. Saying they all are basically the same is to miss millennia of culture.
Anyway I don’t mean to be hostile or critical here, I just think religious architecture is pretty fascinating and has a much bigger effect on culture, even supposedly secular culture, than people realize. I encourage anyone interested to read more about it.