Is idolatry by any other name still . . . idolotry?

Right near the end of her book, Armstrong writes, "In montheistic terms, it is idolatry to see a shrine or a city as the ultimate goal of religion. Throughout, we have seen that they are symbols that point beyond themselves to a greater Reality. Jerusalem and its sacred sites have been experienced as numinous" (423).

This is SUCH an interesting perspective - and one I hadn't thought of before. But, it totally makes sense. This is idolatry, really. I'm surprised that I didn't see it, because I can go on and on (but I won't!) about the ways in which the contemporary practice of the monotheistic religions is thick with idolatry (sometimes it even seems that idolatry reigns).

So, I do have some questions about this. First, do you think that practitioners of the monotheistic religions do see Jerusalem as "the ultimate goal of religion?" I don't think that Christians do, and Dr. Sessa solidified that on Tuesday. What about Jews and Muslims? Is Jerusalem the end-goal? Or, is it cast as the religious goal in order to give "weight" to political and territorial claims?

Also, how is this vying for Jerusalem as idolatry not a more common thread in the discussions of it? Now that I've read it in Armstrong, it seems so obvious. Yet, I don't know that I've ever heard this come up in a conversation about contemporary Jerusalem and the conflict there. It seems that perhaps this is another example of religion "picking and choosing" in order to advance political claims. (i.e. Using Leviticus to claim that homosexuality is "wrong," but ignoring other laws presented in this same book of the Bible, some of which are QUITE disturbing.)