The iconoclastic debate is one in which there is a dispute over the use of so called religious images. The argument is centered on the appropriate use of such icons in religious worship. The icons become problematic when the worshipper of a divinity or religion can possibly deviate from their belief system through the religious venerations that represent that original faith. Baudrillard believed the problem lied with the reason for the creation of such an icon and its future evolution. An evolution that would create a parallel theology, deeming the divinity the icon it was supposed to represent.
             The icon used to represent the Divine to the masses is quite powerful. The image chosen is identified with all the values a certain religion entails. An example of this would be the use of the cross in Christianity. Many Christians wear the cross which signifies principle, morale and even that they celebrate Christmas. The question becomes whether it is possible for an image or symbol to denote all that a religion embodies? What uniquely separates this image from any other? One predicament in which Baudrillard recognizes is who chooses the image. These peoples influence can possibly be misused and an image can denote other meaning aside from the set theological one. If Bill Gates had his way the Christian cross would probably be replaced by a windows icon. Devote Christians would probably leave their Macs and other operating systems behind, and flock to the nearest electronics store for the morally justifiable system. Once an image is assigned values and socially embedded into everyday life what becomes of the simplistic devotion to the original faith. Baudrillard fears that the worshipper may misdirect reverence towards the icon rather than that which the icon represented. The icon becomes the substitute which in turn takes away from the original theology. The icon is twisted and altered to overpower the original theology ...