A finding of "heresey" requires a standard doctrine that is being deviated from. The standard being used in the article is belief in a literal interpreation of the account of Creation from the Book of Genesis.
What you want is to make that belief a political litmus test, essentially establishing a standard of "political correctness" that says only people who hold that religious belief are to be considered politically acceptable.
Disagreements over Biblical interpretation have been going on for centuries - this is not news. Neither is wanting to make it a political litmus test. The Founders saw the effects of doing it and wanted none of it. I agree with them.
“What you want is to make that belief a political litmus test,”
So you assert. The assertion does not prove the fact. Prove it.
“The Founders saw the effects of doing it (Establishing a religious doctrine that held any deviation to be heresy) and wanted none of it.”
The Founders were Christian men who were convinced that no viable government could long endure without a sound moral foundation, and they thought its best foundation was to be found (as Adams put it) in the more general Christian principles. They were virtually unanimous in their opposition to Establishment Religion, which meant to them the elevation of one specific religious doctrine to a place of dominance over all other doctrines thereby rendering any deviation from that doctrine a “heresy.”
I thought that in my post #35 I made clear my opposition to the imposition of any form of heresy, but apparently you were so focused on your objective of confining heresy to a single target that you could not accept any deviation from your objective as being anything but objectionable to you.
I find no compelling reason why I must tailor my words and thoughts to your objectives.
“A finding of “heresey” requires a standard doctrine that is being deviated from. “
Spirited: To ancient nature-worshippers as represented by the Epicureans (physical materialists) and Stoics (spiritual materialists) the Christian teaching that a living, personal Creator upholds the souls of men and all of creation yet exists outside of nature (space time dimension) was not only offensive but blasphemous and heretical, as they believed that the substance and actions of God were fully dispersed within nature. Worse was the teaching that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate, which if true meant that God had incarnated within the evil matter in which the divine sparks of men were entombed and from which they sought escape.
Philosophically, Darwinism is physical materialism, an updated version of Epicureanism, while Teilhardism is spiritual materialism, an updated version of Stoicism and Westernized pantheist Hinduism. To religious believers of either or both, supernatural Christian theism is as offensive, heretical and blasphemous as it was to ancient Greeks. If this was not so then nature religion Mullahs would not be persecuting, hounding and censoring all public talk about Christian theism and demanding it be strictly forced out of the public arena. Nor would they be prohibiting prayer and demanding the removal of cemetery crosses, crèches, and even the public mention of Jesus Christ.