Talk:Idolatry

More discussion on this article may be found here: Talk:Idolatry/archive

I made three deletions: I changed "misinterpret" to "a partisan interpretation" because that is NPOV. I changed something similar to read "doesn't represent the point of view of..." again for NPOV reasons. I also deleted this, because it is wrong:

At its basic level, however, the taboo of "idolatry" represents a common (universal) concept among all religious traditions to make forbid a reverence or attachment to the material world (finite); as such reverence contradicts a unique reverence for the "holy" (infinite).

First, many religions (including Judaism) have an affectionate if not reverential relationship to the material world. There is of course a gnostic strain within Judaism, my point is that it is simply false to make this claim about all religions. Second, holy does not mean infinite. This may be someone's interpretation of holy" but it is not the mainstream one. It contradicts Otto and Kadushin. At the very least, it must be presented as one interpretation of "holy" and you need to explain whose view it is. But I like the way the article starts! Slrubenstein

I haven't read this article yet, but I agree with Slrubenstein's deletion. Orthodox Christianity also places great emphasis on the goodness of the material world, because it was (according to them) created by a good God. From this perspective, rejection of the material world is one of gnosticism's chief errors, shared by Hinduism, Buddhism and others I'm sure. Wesley

And yet every word of that paragraph remains true! In its basic essence, I mean... Not that it wasnt perhaps too "universalist"... I think it could still be there without being quite as sweeping -generalizing... In fact, your point, SL and Wes about "materialism" visaviz idolatry are probably worth mentioning:

"At its basic level, however, the taboo, "idolatry" represents a common (universalist) concept among all religious traditions to make forbid a reverence for material world (finite); as such reverence contradicts a unique reverence for the "holy" (infinite). This does not preclude materialistic "principles", and these generally fall into more practical aspects of religious doctrine."

-&#35918&#30505

Stevertigo, You seem to be equating the words "common" and "universalist". They are not the same in their everyday usage. Universalist or universal means all without exceptions. Common allows for exceptions. It only takes one notable exception for an idea to not be universal. Slrubenstein and I have asserted that Judaism and Christianity are both exceptions, and I don't think you disagree.

Also, regarding the word "holy" -- it seems that you thoroughly misunderstand the word. I've always been taught in the various Christian churches I grew up in that holy meant either "pure" or "set apart" depending on the context. I don't know who or what connects the word "holy" with "infinite" or even with "God", except as one of His divine attributes. For example, the altar and various vessels used by the Hebrew people in their Temple worship were called "holy" not because they were infinite, or because they were thought to contain "mana" or "power" or anything, but because they were set apart to be used only in connection with sacrifices being offered to God, and probably had been ritually purified. So in that case, both the "pure" and "set apart" meanings would be applicable. This is probably a much more common usage across religions and cultures; it has nothing to do with setting these things apart to be worshipped, even though the objects may be handled with some reverence and there may be strict guidelines as to who can touch them and when, and for what purpose.

I hope this helps. Wesley 17:31 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)

As far as I know, this is true for Judaism as well. The only work of comparative religion I know of on "Holy" is Otto's classic, but I am sure there has more recent work by other scholars. In any event, I think Wesley is right on. Slrubenstein

I repeat: this paragraph is not true. Now you may disagree with me. You may say it is not true according to my point of view. Okay. But then we could say it is true according to your point of view. But these areicles are supposed to be NPOV! Included the views current in scholarship on religion. If there are debates among scholars of religion, provide an account of them. But let us not put in false or non-NPOV statements -- and either way, the paragraph in question is false or POV. Slrubenstein

I added text to represent at least one Buddhist view of things (there actually are a lot of different and conflicting Buddhist views toward things.) But the original text which implied that Buddhism was pantheistic was definitely wrong. I don't know enough about Hinduism to comment on that text. -RR

Hmm... ok lets break this down: My argument:

"At its basic level, however, the taboo, "idolatry" represents a common (universalist) concept among all religious traditions to make forbid a reverence for material world (finite); as such reverence contradicts a unique reverence for the "holy" (infinite). This does not preclude materialistic "principles", and these generally fall into more practical aspects of religious doctrine."

ISSUE: Status of idolatry as a universalist concept Point: IDOLATRY is: a common concept. Reason: The basic idea behind "idolaty as forbid" has a common theme namely: "Dont fuck with God's rules and go do this or that." Assumptions:

That there is a "basic idea" behind idolatry.
That all societies have similar rules.
That any common themes have a universal tranlation

Your argument:

"many religions (including Judaism) have an affectionate if not reverential relationship to the material world. There is of course a gnostic strain within Judaism, my point is that it is simply false to make this claim about all religions. Second, holy does not mean infinite. This may be someone's interpretation of holy" but it is not the mainstream one. It contradicts Otto and Kadushin. At the very least, it must be presented as one interpretation of "holy" and you need to explain whose view it is"

"I repeat: this paragraph is not true. Now you may disagree with me. You may say it is not true according to my point of view. Okay. But then we could say it is true according to your point of view. But these areicles are supposed to be NPOV! Included the views current in scholarship on religion. If there are debates among scholars of religion, provide an account of them. But let us not put in false or non-NPOV statements -- and either way, the paragraph in question is false or POV."

ISSUE: Status of idolatry as a universalist concept Point: IDOLATRY is: not a common concept. Reasons::

many religions have an affectionate if not reverential relationship to the material world. With exceptions...
"holy does not mean infinite." Subjective. May be better written as POV.
point of view. Okay. Articles are supposed to be NPOV, Including the views current in scholarship on religion.

Assumptions:

That the universalist concept of idolatry is POV, i.e. "idolatry" cannot in any way be generalized.
That by "holy and infinite" one is implying that holy and infinite are the same,
That there is no means for defining a common concept of idolatry vis a vis NPOV

Rebuttal: I do not make any claims about all religions, rather I imply a relationship across religions about idolatry as, in one form or another "a taboo, about X." Concession: "Universalist" may be a POV term, however as some read it. Concession: "holy" may be a POV term, however as some read it. Caveat: However, you assume that the wording implies that holy and infinite are the same, rather than illustrating a relationship between "unholy and finite" > "holy and infinite" You assume that there is no means for defining a common concept of idolatry vis a vis NPOV - and yet offer no support for this, in itself, other than to say that any POV, including NPOV, is POV.... -&#35918&#30505

Sorry Sv, you seem to miss the point, which is not that "holy" is a point of view term -- the issue is not whether "idolatry" or "holy" are point of view terms, the issue is that how one defines and interprets these words is point of view. And that isn't even an argument -- it goes without saying. The point is this: A good article must

identify whose point of view a particular approach to idolatry (or holy or whatever) is, and
provide an account of other points of view about these terms (meaning, usage)

In other words, I am most definitely not asserting that "there is no means for defining a common concept of idolatry." I am asserting that any definition of a concept (common or uncommon) of idolatry reflects a partricular scholars' point of view. You should name the scholar whose point of view you are representing. I am not insisting that you delete the analysis, only that you ascribe it to the people who promote it and acknowledge what, if any, debate there is. Slrubenstein

Issue: Steves use of universalism or generalizing as POV. Point: Steve is not NPOV, by generalizing. Reasons:

These are all POV and as such must be represented as POV1, POV2, etc...
Because how one defines and interprets these words is point of view.
The WP is exclusively for research of "scholars" POV"

Assumptions:

That there is some greater degree of control in how people interpret words, by refraining from generlizing about the classified POV1, POV2 etc....
That such generalization cannot be arrived at without attribution
That such analysis is not forthcoming of attribution %] -&#35918&#30505

INTERRUPTING: &#35918&#30505, what point are you trying to make? I'm sorry, but I'm having difficulty parsing these incomplete sentences. I think what Slrubenstein meant is that Points of View ought to be attributed to someone generally recognizable, such as a leading scholar; another example would be a recognized group, faction, tradition, or other... demographic segment for lack of a better word. As opposed to just my POV or just your POV. (See, I can use fragments too. ;-) One reason I contribute to wikipedia is because of the incentive it gives me to go learn more than I knew before, as well as what I learn fromother contributors. Wesley

ANSWERING INTERRUPT: Ah, but your learning should be done elsewhere, according to some... "That such is not forthcoming of attribution " was my point - Its easy to remove, things in the assumption that attibution is not forthcoming. Instead of removing, just say, 'I'd like to see this attributed. I can see a problem with that, however- and that is the quality of sources attributed are not all liked by everyone.. quote Campbell, and you piss off the literalists and the orthodox... Quote Eliade and you might miss the point altogether...

And if the argument that each point needs attribution is to be a litmus test, then this article as well as countless others need to be purged entirely. The notion of attribution is necessary, but is not viable as a concrete rule here - particularly when specic points can be debated regardless of attribution, as anyone can edit and contest a piece of material - this is what was done here, but my point is that a better faith effort could be made to moderate the language used. Clearly the point is contentious, and assuming - that all people's religion is based in common ideas, alone is hard to argue for, let alone a specific notion such as idolatry being in some way or language applicable to all faiths. To me, it seems axiomatic - it may be based on Campbellian idea I once read, which would be tied with a Jungian concept... note that all the "paramount" thinkers of the last century have had one theme, which is namely universality - applying the common themes underlying myth to all people. But religion is not myth, many say... you see... thats where blanket criticism often coming from, hence my skepticism for playing by such rules. In fact, the only argument against this (my) notion as expessed that I can see is that that its too sweeping and general; the fuzzy-finite boundary of generalization. But alot of this is semantics as well.. I dont care how its phrased, I just want an echo of the first paragraph with an emphasis on the commonality of idolatry (regardless of how its phrased) as a concept. If this particular point was never made by any established reputability, then perhaps I ought research it on my own... as if I had the resources. - But such is the thrill of academic accomplishment - to fill a hole in the gaps of man's understanding... nevertheless, its still fixing a hole. SLr's criticism is nonetheless valid, albeit only on its surface, and it will have to sit where it sits for now, until "attribution" (perhaps "connection with" is proper ) can be made. I do caution, of course, the use of assumed limits as they carry over into the discourse. -Stevertigo

Quoting Campbell or whoever is fine, just so it's someone relatively well known and half way authoritative or at least influential regarding the subject the quote is being applied to. Personally, I think that if all the "paramount" thinkers of the last century think there's a universality to everything, there's not a reason to assume they're right. I might also ask whether they meant that thought to be applied to religious themes like idolatry or worship. You can however say something as broad as "according to all the paramount thinkers of the 20th century, idolatry is a universal theme running through all religions" or something like that. In my mind, even that would count as attribution. The reader can decide how much weight to give to such 20th century thinkers. Or to Campbell or whoever. Wesley

Is Stevertigo's latest comment a joke? This is really bizarre. Every week Stvertigo finds a new article to stuff with convoluted word-salad that has no purpose or meaningful content, and I am really concerned about this. He writes long-winded, grammatically nonsense phrases, and then gets angry at people when we can't follow his ranting. Talk pages are supposed about improving articles, not ghost-writing as therapy. - RK

RK please try to work on your insulting behavior... Susan Mason

slr--if you made a habit of frequently and clearly quoting published material (and not merely dropping names and reading lists) I'm sure other people would start doing the same. Susan Mason

Susan, everytime I contribute to an article and draw on the work of a recognized scholar, I provide the name of the author and book or article. But I think you miss the point: I contribute to articles having done research; you do not. When someone asks me what my sources are, I provide them; when I ask you what your sources are, you evade, evade, and evade -- as you do here. People like you should start providing sources not because I do, but because they have sources. To suggest that you do not do the right thing simply because I do not do it is childish. Slrubenstein

SLR-What you do is insult people. Citing sources involves quoting a passage with page, author, and publication. You do not do that, you simply go around insulting. You are not providing sources. I have not been providing sources to you because I have no respect for you, all you do is insult. Susan Mason

I think you're both straying off topic here. These remarks have nothing to do with improving the Idolatry article. Personal comments can go on each other's Talk pages, especially if they're constructive. There may be a general Wikipedia topic for attributions or something similar where this has been discussed (I'd be surprised if it hasn't), or in meta, which might be a better place for all of us to resolve the dispute over what needs attribution and how detailed it ought to be.

In any case, Wikipedia is not the place for individual research or personal essays. Where possible, it should document well known and agreed upon facts. Where there is broad disagreement, it should outline the various sides of the agreement, who the main persons or groups are that represent each side, what evidence is available (if that applies), who cares about the debate or is affected by it, and so on. This shouldn't be that difficult or controversial, should it? Wesley

Except he finds it appropriate to harrass and insult me with every post he makes-and that is controversial. Susan Mason

Despite my respect for Susan's youth and energy, her course of action tends towards the inflamatory instead of the reconciliatory... I dont endorse Susan's escalation of SLr's rude commentary, to the realm of insults. The fundamental disagreement here is as to whether NPOV is applied equally, Wesley -fortunately the contention is limited to only the contentious points... (that happen to arise) and we deal with them as best we can. What Susan and I (object to is the superficial claim of authoritativeness, being unequally applied...

Valid questions do deserve answers however; I may be St. Stephen, but I'm not the answer man. -&#35918&#30505

I made a few changes to the first couple of pragraphs. Here's why:

I cut the stuff on the "finite." To be clear (especially to Sv): I have no problem with including this view in the article. But it is a contentious view so I do not think it should be in the opening paragraph, or used to define idolatry. Please incorporate a discussion of finite/infinite into the body, and make it clear that it is one view of idolatry among others.

I changed "pagan" to "henotheist" for two reasons. First, not all ancient religions were polytheistic, some were henotheistic. Second, those religions did not identify themselves as "pagan," I think pagan was first used as a pejorative. I have no objection to including a link to "paganism" but in the original context in the article it was anachronistic and I think ethnocentric. Finally, I deleted "ethical" as it modified "monotheist," it is another anachronism that at best oversimplifies -- and I think misrepresents -- the Bible. Slrubenstein

I don't want to delete it, because it would disprupt the flow of the article, but the passage on Hinduism being polytheistic is severely incorrect. Hindu polytheism is something that existed long ago, and in terms of worship it may still be said to exist, as many "gods" are venerated. However, Hinduism has had an understanding of these "gods" as aspects of a single entity (e.g., "the" god, brahman) for thousands of years, well before the advent of Christianity. This is evidenced by passages in the Bhagavad Gita which clearly state this perspective; some have argued that similar passages exist in the Vedas; I cannot verify the latter, but I do know the former is true. In modern Hindu practice, though people worship individual "gods", nevertheless most, if not all, Hindus have an understanding of an underlying unity amongst these "gods" - indeed, it is a core principle of Hindu thought. Even divisions between worshippers of Shiva and Vishnu arose not because of contests over which god was superior, but rather because of philosophical disagreements on which aspect of divinity (as represented by Shiva and Vishnu) was appropriate to be worshipped. -User:Graft

Graft - in theory I agree, but I am concerned that you are not making a distinction between Hindu theory, and Hindu practice. My (admittedly limited) reading on this subject, and my (admittedly limited) conversation with Hindus left me with the distinct impression that most Hindus always have been polytheists, and many still are. There are similar differences in Judaism, where the mass of Jewish believers have beliefs that are at direct odds with texts that they claim to follow. (For example, most Jews who try to accept Maimonides's point of view on various topics in practice reject his views! Many of his writings are so utterly misunderstood by the Jewish masses they attribute views to him that are quite the opposite of what he actually wrote! (Details available if anyone is interested.) I would like to incorporate what you wrote into the article, but I would also like to differentiate between practical beliefs versus theoretical teachings. RK

This is simply not true. Most Hindus, in my experience, would not consider themselves polytheists. Graft

For most educated Hindus today, espeically those outside of India, I agree. For most Hindus thoughout history, that is a different story. RK

I would be delighted to see your sources for this claim. Graft

Besides the two web pages I references, I will be bringing forth more sources. However, I think you are using a looser definition of the word "monotheism" than I am. The Hindu henotheism and nmonotheism that I see described here are what many Jews and Muslims see as polytheism. Even when you explain that this worship of multiple gods is really a way to worship just one, it looks, sounds and feels like polytheism. So given, I guess using this Hindu definition of monotheism, they could all be defined as monotheistic. However, it doesn't fit the Jewish, Muslim, Biblical, Deist or Unitarian definition of monotheism. RK

I take this to mean that these are the only definitions of monotheism you consider appropriate, and no others qualify. I disagree. I think the concept of Brahman is inherently monotheistic. To me, polytheism is the acknowledgement of the existence of multiple gods as separate beings. I don't see how Hinduism looks, sounds and feels like that, except on a very superficial level. By the same argument, the Christian Trinity is polytheist, but most people are willing to let that one slide, for some reason. Graft

Graft, I do not think this is RKs point -- I think his point is just that there may be radically different kinds of "monotheisms." This is an important point in the context of this article, and recent discussions of "Abrahamic religions," that contrast monotheism to polytheism -- as if all polytheisms were the same, and all monotheisms were the same. I think a good deal of the debate on the talk pages for these articles reflects a difference -- both tempermental and theoretical -- betwen generalists and particularists (aka lumpers and splitters). Although I have my own intellectual comittments, I do not think that one of these approaches is "right" and the other "wrong;" rather, the different approaches are helpful for different kinds of questions. In any event, it is important to recognize that although in one context Judaism and Hinduism can be lumped together as monotheistic, in some other context the differences between them are and significant.

RK and Graft -- I think both of you recognize that your exchange here is somewhat tangential to the topic of the article. Yet I find the exchange fascinating and worthwhile. Do you think the two of you can start work on a new article -- Comparing and contrasting Judaism and Hinduism or Different kinds of monotheisms or whatever you want to call it? You can start just by cutting and pasting much of your exchange here to that article. It is too informative to be left on a talk page of a tangential topic. Slrubenstein

I want to point out a weakness in this article; it treats Hinduism as a religion, when strictly speaking, no such unified religion historically existed. Hinduism is a term that encompasses a set of religions. Some of these religions are monotheistic, some are atheistic, some are based on ancestor worship, some are polytheistic. Maybe most Hindus today are effectively monotheistic? Maybe most are henotheistic? I am not wed to any one answer; I honestly don't know. I would like discussions and article content on this subject to reflect some of the ideas in the two articles below. RK

I'm not necessarily going to reject this interpretation of history, since it has its merits. The people who call themselves Hindus now may not always have thought of themselves as a collective entity until the influx of other religions (beginning with Islam) forced them to think in these terms. But, on the other hand, I think it's a bit disingenuous to say that, because there may not have been a label for the various belief systems now called Hinduism, it therefore did not exist.

A lot of this debate stems into current politics, and as usual these positions on Hinduism are based on a desire to see history in a particular way. This is certainly the case for the first website you cite, which comes from a group that has a clear interest in denying the historical existence of Hinduism.

Though "atheism" is often included within the fold of possible twists of Hinduism thanks to Charavak school of thought, I think this is basically a philosophical aberration, and otherwise Hinduism is basically theist. The existence of a broad range of practices does not imply that there are separate religions at work; merely that there is a permissive philosophy that acknowledges a broad range of possible forms of worship.

It may well be that Hinduism or whatever it developed out of was at one time polytheist (I doubt the henotheist part), but this is a subject of debate, and at least as far back as the Gita (1300 BC or so), Hinduism cannot be considered truly "polytheist". I think this is getting a bit far afield of Idolatry, as well. Graft

I appreciate your comments, and I wouldn't mind seeing them worked into the article. However, see my comments above, on the difference between a Hindu and non-Hindu understanding of what monotheism entails. RK

RK I approve of your hard and sincere work on this article.. however, I think your missing the point... and it resides somewhere in the links between how monotheism sprang from polytheism: that there is little difference between them if you understand how the two concepts of the single God differ. Re-paraphrasing Campbell "Western belief says 'God is the trancendent energy', but Eastern religions says 'God is a manifestation of the trancending energy." "God" is a mask, in other words. And in that sense, Eastern beliefs (generally) are somewhat secular and non-literalist. The understanding of the metaphor is a central idea, Thats my limited understanding of it. Of course, just like in other ancient traditions, there is change, growth, and differing interpretation involved. -&#35918&#30505

&#35918&#30505, one of the points in this article that I like is that monotheists often misunderstand polytheism. But if I understand you correctly, you and I have radically different understandings of what this fact means. You seem to think that if monotheists really understood polytheists, then they would see that they aren't so different. I, on the other hand, think that the fact that monotheists misunderstand polytheists reveals just how fundamentally different they are. Thus, I don't agree that monotheism "sprang" from polytheism. Sure, it is likely that polytheism existed prior to monotheism -- but that doesn't mean that monotheism sprang from, is descended from, or developed from polytheism. Clinton was president before Bush, but that doesn't mean that Bush sprang out of Clinton or that the Republicans sprang out of the Democrats -- temporal sequence is not the same thing as causality. I believe monotheism is the result of a radical rupture, and represents something essentially different from polytheism, and that is why monotheists have such a hard time understanding what polytheists are thinking/feeling. Of course, I get most of this view from Kaufman -- if you are basing your argument on some sort of critique of Kaufman, please tell me more

By the way, as you point out, Campbell is just one view. I think he was a serious scholar and his views should be represented, but they are by no means widely accepted. I read an article in Midstream or Tikkun many years ago that argued that he was an anti-semite -- not that he explicitly said anything negative about Jews, but that his approach to religion involved a systematic attack on Judaism. I am not sure whether he was anti-semitic or not; my point is that I don't think he really understood Judaism or Biblical religion. Maybe he really understood paganism -- but this is my point; that he might really understand paganism, and really misunderstand Judaism, just shows how fundamentally different the two kinds of religions are. Slrubenstein

Wesley, which church council (I presume ecumenical council) condemned Doceticism? I know Ignatius in the early 2nd cen. condemned Doceticism, but that was about two centuries before Nicea. SCCarlson

I believe the Council of Chalcedon in 451 formally condemned it. Yes, it's an Ecumenical Council. Before then, it was condemned by the Gospel of John, Ignatius of Antioch (as you said), Irenaeus of Lyons and others. The council may not have dealt with docetism by name, but it did explicitly affirm and spell out in detail Christ's full divinity and full humanity, as reflected in the Chalcedonian Creed. Wesley

Although there's certainly no room for docetism in the Chalcedonian Creed, it is my impression that the Council of Chalcedon was convened to refute the monophysite position. I suppose my objection is that the article statement strikes me as somwhat anachronistic, because the heresy of that time was monophysite not docetist. Docetism lost its steam before ecumenical councils were convened. SCCarlson

Ok, I think you have a point. What if we change the second sentence of this passage:

In this view, the veneration of icons is mandatory; to not venerate icons would imply that Jesus was not also fully God, or to deny that Jesus had a real physical body. Those Christians who denied that Jesus had a body were seen by other Christians as heretics and condemned as such at church-wide councils; their theology is known as docetism.

to this:

Both of these alternatives are incompatible with the christology defined at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and summarized in the Chalcedonian Creed.

and just drop the mention of docetism altogether? That way it addresses both alternatives instead of just one, and points to what the council did say instead of emphasizing an earlier heresy. Wesley 18:58 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

The second alternative sounds better. SCCarlson 22:12 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

I asked this a while ago and it got ignored, then moved to the archives: how or when have Roman Catholics criticized Eastern Orthodoxy's use of icons? I don't think that they have, since I can buy Orthodox icons at the local Catholic bookstore, and if no one disagrees within a couple days, will amend the article accordingly. Currently the article just says everyone disagrees with everyone else's stance on images, which I think slightly overstates the situation. Wesley

Why is irreverant to God in " " within paragraph 1? Susan Mason

I don't know. I do think, though, that prior to your rewrite the first paragraph was trying to express two different uses of "idolatry," and that your rewrite (cutting polytheism) essentially reduced it to one. I don't have any objection, but given the new first line, maybe this sentence can be deleted? Can you find a way to edit the sentences in the first paragraph together? Slrubenstein

It's an unattributed quote. Normally these are used to denote particular phrases that are very commonly used by those who hold a certain position. For example, the word firefighter is sometimes denigrated as "political correctness gone mad". Those four words are a very particular phrase that gets 1,420 google hits compared to, say, 40 hits for "political correctness gone crazy" and 17 hits for "political correctness gone bonkers".

However, it does not appear that "irreverent to God" is a phrase in this mould, obtaining a mere 33 google hits. (nb, note spelling: there is no 'a' in irreverent). Removing the quotes seems reasonable. Martin

According to whom is "idol worship" more value neutral? I don't see it that way, but maybe I am wrong -- what's the source? Slrubenstein

Originally, just my and Ed's guts, but I looked for dictionary support, of course: Idolatry Idol worship - which gives some, limited confirmation - idolatry has other, negative, meanings, besides meaning the worship of idols, which I perceive as giving the word negative connotations. I'm happy with the status quo, though.

I'm glad. I guess for me the key point is that most of those who are labeled "idol worshipers" deny that they are idol worshipers -- either they claim that what they are worshiping are not "idols," or they claim that their use of material objects is not "worship" -- I think the word idol is by definition negative. I don't know of any one who responds to the accusation of "idol worship" by arguing that idols are good; rather, they argue that the accusers are misunderstanding/misrepresenting what is going on. Slrubenstein

Oh, you can definately find someone arguing that idol worship is good. For example, some Hindus accept idol worship with open arms. I found no corresponding links for idolatry in my brief search... Martin

Thanks for providing the link! But I am still taken by the sentence: "One might argue that the idol is not God. Nor is the flag, a nation, nor is your wedding ring a marriage, nor is your father’s photograph, your father! Yet, you would never dream of treating these symbols with disrespect." -- it seems to me that this author is claiming that it really isn't idol worship. Indeed, the author puts "idol worship" in scare-quotes, which usually indicates that an author is using terminology that he or she doesn't really approve of, but uses because others use it. Slrubenstein