Respect or veneration for a figure, even if it is associated with falsehood, may be justified not by literally acknowledging its truth, but by its symbolic function and communicative role.

Symbolic Respect and Ideological Communication

Respect or veneration for a figure, even if it is associated with falsehood, may be justified not by literally acknowledging its truth, but by its symbolic function and communicative role. That is, if the figure is used as a sign reflecting certain values, ideas, or an ideological position, then the respect shown towards it can serve as a means of conveying a subjective, often ritual, meaning.

As explained in one source, sign figures that have lost their original essence can become mere functions – tools of ideological manipulation – yet at the same time, they serve as attributes through which modern subjective consciousness expresses its communicative positions. In particular, a quote from the file " link txt" states:
"In losing its face, these sign figures become a function and turn into an instrument of ideological manipulation. By this sign logic, anyone who shows respect for the memory of the ruler John or expresses critical judgments about some of Reverend Alexander Menya’s ideas risks being automatically classified among anti-Semites, while someone who labels the improper act of Sergey Kovalev, who received an order from Dudaev, as unclean is consigned to the ranks of communists and enemies of freedom. Thus, sign figures begin to play the role of litmus paper in the system of social tests and become attributes of new rituals. And yet, perhaps precisely due to this sign character, modern subjectivist consciousness carries out its communicative functions."
(source: link txt)

It is important to note that in this context it is not about unconditional approval or literally accepting false claims, but rather that respect can be expressed through the symbolic meaning of a figure. In other words, if the veneration is aimed at conveying a particular cultural or ideological message rather than a direct acknowledgment of factual truth, then such an attitude may be justified within a specific communicative or ritual practice.

On the other hand, when it comes to the worship of a "creature" instead of the Creator, as emphasized by another source, the main danger is that the true meaning can be replaced by falsehood. For example, Apostle Paul makes an important observation:
"Abraham bowed down to the Hittites (Gen. 23:12); 'Brothers... they bowed down to him (to Joseph) with their faces to the ground' (Gen. 42:6), among other examples.

In what sense do we speak of worshiping icons, of venerating them, and can this be qualified as idolatry?

First, it is necessary to define what constitutes idolatry or paganism. The most profound definition of paganism is given by Apostle Paul: 'They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.'"
(source: link txt)

This moment emphasizes that respect should not turn into unthinking imitation or blind veneration based solely on false premises. Thus, if a figure associated with falsehood nonetheless serves as a symbol through which personal or collective ideals are expressed, and if respect toward it does not imply acknowledgment of falsehood but merely the use of it as a ritual-communicative sign, then such veneration may be justified.