I honestly feel like screaming any time I come across a site posting false info about Catholicism, especially when that info has come from Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons. I know some people don't realise the ideas they're posting come from that, since Hislop has been referenced by lots of other people, but it's still infuriating, not only as a Catholic, but also a student of archaeology and history. His claims are incredibly inaccurate, with no basis in the historical or archaeological record. I am therefore going to go through some of his claims briefly. I apologise if it gets confusing.
Basically, he claims that Catholicism is a continuation pagan Babylonian worship. According to him, this centres on Nimrod, Semiramis, and Tammuz. So who were these people? Nimrod is mentioned in the Bible (Genesis 10:8-10) as the great-grandson of Noah and king of Babel. Traditionally, he's the builder of the tower of Babel. Beyond that, we don't really know. According to Hislop, Nimrod is the same person as Ninus, founder of Nineveh and husband of Semiramis according to the Greeks. Semiramis is often identified with an Assyrian queen Shammuramat, who didn't live at the same time as either Nimrod or Ninus. Hislop claims that Semiramis deified herself as “the Mother” and is the same person as the goddess Rhea. He also claims that Ninus/Nimrod is sometimes listed as her son, and that the two of them together are also the same as Osiris and Isis, claiming that Osiris is the son and husband of Isis. However, Osiris is not the son of Isis in any Egyptian myth of which I'm aware. He is her brother and husband, but not her son. Tammuz was a Sumerian god of vegetation. While Hislop identifies him as the son of Semiramis, there was no connection with her.
He continues to identify these figures with various pagan deities, noting tenuous similarities (which sometimes don't actually exist at all). He speaks of the prevalence of these mother & son dyads in different religions, and concludes that the depictions of Mary and the Infant Jesus show a continuation of that pagan worship. In reality, the depictions of Mary and the Infant Jesus simply show the reality that Jesus became Incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and she no doubt held Him as any mother would hold her Son. More to the point, Mary isn't worshipped by Catholics; if anyone were to worship her, they would be disobeying the Church.
I know I've not gone into great detail - maybe I can get to that another time - but I wanted to address those things quickly.