Perhaps that is what is meant by the biblical, ‘thou shalt have no other Gods before me’. In that phrase, I find an exhortation to respect the idea of omniscience, omnipotence, amongst others, so that we would be able to value all equally as opposed to blinkering all via fixation with just one. God is a paradoxical phenomenon in that the fixation with God relives us of fixation with the singular celebrated deity or the value s/he accords a phenomenon because of her association with it. It tells us that not only are there many points on a developmental curve, but that there are a multitude of developmental curves as well. Just like 'being Indian' is quite like being 'not Indian' as it is a mindset that is constantly in flux in the face of difference. 'Indian' is sort of a conduit for cultural and intellectual fusion - hence, amongst others, the concept of the Hindu 'OM', their 1001 gods, languages, cultures, etc.
There are a whole lot of consequences that comes with idolatory, aka, celeb-worshipping – and people actually call this a secular state. It is fascism of the worst kind as people rally around an idea that isn’t one. A container of value that imbues with value anything that is put into it. In this, fascism is refined to fit in well with 'modern' civilisation and enjoy longevity. The organism has certainly mutated well to adapt to its host hasn't it. So if Michelle Obama decides white poodles are ‘hip’ this summer, it becomes the in-thing.
Prominence is accorded value in itself, and just about everything, other than that which is blatantly morally repugnant, that is associated with it, becomes transfigured by association. Celebs horde resources such as attention, wealth, volition, amongst others, and determine the currents of society’s gastric juices. Billions cease to think and become little more than a sub-species of the genus brought into being via the celeb. And I cannot but bemoan the cultural loss that came with women being assimilated into a patriarchal state of affairs. Weren't women the stewards of the great virtues of empathy. Weren't the relatively 'least' in a position to emancipate the 'most' from the competitive and alienating milieu they engendered? But patriarchy served as the 'celeb' and the relatively less lauded became nothing.
How many billion bits and bytes of ideas and potentials are lost by the second as people are ignored for these selfsame ideas and potentials not having spewed out of the arse of some ‘star’, and how many aspirations are culled as people cast aside their uniqueness for the absence of ‘hits’. And how many people are going to be born in such a milieu and take their aspirational cue from what’s left over.
Ahh. Not good I’m afraid. As I said some years ago, royalty has, amongst others, served as an indicator of that which emerges when the experiences and attention we afford them result in the production of that which is laudable. I really don’t see why people ought to worship the result as opposed to giving attention to and applying the methods that brought it about.