IDOLATRY AND DOGMATISM: THE VEILS OF MAYA

By this logic what makes for idolatry is not the use of representational forms in worship, but only the use of non-Christian images, which is obviously a prejudice. An image of Krishna as the good cowherder is on par with that of Christ as the good shepherd, the Divine as the caretaker of souls. To make one into a superstitious idol and the other into a sacred image is hypocritical and intolerant. It is like saying that only spices used in American cooking are legitimate spices, while those used in Indian cooking are food adulterants!

What Christian would accept a depiction of Christ being called an idol? Would Christian religious leaders approve of it in the press of Christian countries? Yet Hindus and other non-Christians routinely accept that depictions of their deities - who represent such high truths as Self-realization - are demeaned as idols.

To call such images idols implies that those who worship them practice idolatry or take the image itself as a God. This adds yet more prejudice and error to the judgement. The use of an image - whether we call it an icon or an idol - does not imply belief in the reality of the image. That we keep a photograph of our wife and children at our work desk does not mean that we think our wife and children are the photograph.

The use of the term idol inflames the sentiments of anti-idolatry religions like Christianity and Islam, as both the Bible and the Koran instruct their followers to destroy idolaters and their temples. The use of the term idol is thus careless, insensitive, and potentially inflammatory. It should be removed in an effort to promote greater understanding and good will between religious groups.

[ Back ] [ David Frawley ] [ Up ] [ Next ]