Certain acts, I admit, are fundamentally idolatrous. But at the same time, I’d like to maintain a hard distinction between the created thing and the actions that abuse that created thing. The flag has a proper place and an improper place.

That said, I’m sure that somewhere in the God-haunted South, some deeply confused Christian brother is trying to patent his brand of red, white, and blue communion wafers.

You cannot justify the criticism of condemning idolatry without supporting the prior implied judgment that things are basically normal.

As an alternative to polemic rhetoric I have increasingly became interested in the dialogue taking place between “new traditionalism”/”racial ecclesiology” and “radical democracy”. What I find most prolific from their engagement is that both sides have a point. Liberalism/secularism has a good deal of ills. But so does Christianity (even when theopolitically minded). Their take-away advice seems to be that democratic/ecumenical conversation should at least be more charitable and receptive – from all parties involved. The advantage of both ecclesial and democratic socities is that thoughts, opinions, perspectives, etc. can be exchanged and can be argued for persuasively in front of a non-violent listening audience. I think that whenever “idolatry” is invoked it makes boggy-men out of people/groups and the dialectic process is blocked from taking place.

Pensans: I’m not arguing for or against government expansion. But idolatry is a serious charge, and if it’s being wagged about at the wrong things, we’re doing ourselves a disservice.