We sneaky devious Catholics think that deeds have at least two aspects, that part which can be photographed and the disposition of the person doing the deed. The "object" of the deed, what the person doing it thinks he's doing and intends by it, is greatly determinative of what the deed actually is, If a person does not INTEND to pay divine honors, does not think the person in front of whose image he is to be divine, then I think it's not a stretch to say he is not paying divine honors.
Somewhat similarly, some pacifists insist that any killing of a human being is murder, while people accustomed to making reasonable distinctions can see the difference between defense of the weak and murder.
I enjoy the "I'm a poor old simple country boy and I don't know none o' that there book larnin' stuff," act, but since even poor ole country boys know the difference between a righteous shoot and murder, I'm thinking the distinction is probably pretty easy to get.
Expressing it, however, that might be a challenge.
Yeah, I remember as a kid, stealing watermelons out of the neighbor's watermelon patch...I wasn't stealing actually, I was just 'taking' it...
Sorry, but if your color blue is the same as the color red, it's likely your blue is actually red...But you can call it blue if you want...
Action and intent. In the opposite of veneration and worship, we have criminal law, which requires actus reus and mens rea for a finding of criminal culpability: the "guilty act" and the "guilty mind."
The same is true on the other end of the spectrum, in matters of veneration or worship: it's not just the act that matters, but the intention of the person committing the act.