text: However, there is a strange dichotomy in how such religious images are judged. When they are part of the Christian tradition they are called icons and classified as works of art and regarded as sacred in nature. When they are part of non-Christian or pagan traditions they are called “idols,” which is a derogatory term that indicates not the sacred but mere superstition. In the case of native American and
  African images, even when done by a culture as advanced as the Mayas of Central America – which built great pyramids and had many great cities – they are lumped along with so-called primitive art.
  An image of Christ as the good shepherd is called an icon and viewed with respect. An image of Krishna as the good cow herder – which is a similar image of the Divine as watching over the souls of men – is called an idol, which encourages one to look down on it. This is prejudice and negative stereotyping in language of the worst order. What Christian would accept calling a depiction of Christ an idol? Would Christian religious leaders approve of it in the press of Christian countries? What Christians in India would accept it? And would not the government and news media of India change the language in their favor? Yet Hindus routinely accept that depictions of their deities – who represent as high a standard in consciousness and ethical behavior as Christ – are demeaned as idols. The news media of India does this commonly, which encourages the Western news media to continue in this practice, which is part of their negative depiction of Hinduism.