Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Supreme Court officializes US idolatry
Message-ID: <4164@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 25-Nov-84 01:23:38 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.4164
Posted: Sun Nov 25 01:23:38 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Nov-84 06:41:51 EST
References: <1747@ucf-cs.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 53

>[from Yiri BenDavid:]
>The concept of idolatry in both Judaism and Christianity is derived 
>from the Judaic definition of the Jewish scriptures. This definition 
>encompasses the ASSOCIATION of an image or images, whether carved, 
>sculpted, painted or drawn, with the object of worship, including
>peripheral entities such as angels. 

It needs to be more than just association to constitute idolotry doesn't
it?  I would think that the figure would have to be the actual object of 
worship or be identified with the object evidently by the actions of the
worshipers toward it.  I don't think the mere existence of images constitutes
idolatry.  The Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant and in Solomon's
temple would have to be included under "peripheral entities" yet they
were included at God's command.  I would think that idolotry lies more in
the heart or motive of the worshiper than the image itself.  Maybe you
agree with this but, if so, you don't seem to be making the distinction
clear.

>This definition encompasses such idolatry as images of Jesus, Mary,
>saints, apostles, angels, etc. whether as sculpted into idols in the
>traditional sense painted in pictures, stained glass windows, etc.
>It also includes idols of 'the baby Jesus'.

If the images are used for illustrative purposes rather than worship, I
don't think we can call them idols.  (There is and Orthodox synagogue here
in Columbus that has some of the most beautiful stained glass I have ever
seen depicting major events in the Old Testament Scriptures.)  The accuracy
of the illustration can be brought into question.  I can't remember seeing
a nativity scene where the figures of the family really looked Jewish.
Same goes for paintings of Jesus.  But I digress.  These images, though they
be of those with religious significance--may only serve a purpose similar to
the statue of Lincoln at the memorial in D.C.

>Thus, the Supreme Court has, by officially authorizing nativity scenes
>be included and funded by Federal monies, put the official stamp of the
>United States on idolatry. While such idolatry has always been present
>among the people, it was not officially United States policy before. We
>can now state that the United States has officially become a pagan and
>idolatrous nation (if the tree hadn't been enough). Its parallels with 
>the Roman Empire become more and more evident with each passing day.

It seems to me that a nativity scene is not put up for the purposes of
worship, but for more historical and cultural purposes.  The traditional
raison d'etre for Christmas festivities centered around the Christ.  It
is ostensibly getting much less so every year.  More and more the importance
of Christmas seems to be keeping our economy moving.  Perhaps we should
replace the nativity scene with a model of the Federal Reserve Bank. :-(

			"In God we trust"
-- 
The "resurrected",

Paul Dubuc	cbscc!pmd