The “church” . . . really? Since “church” is not capitalized, just any old church? No particular denomination? Since you do not specify, is “heresy” strictly confined to being purely a Christian application? There’s no Jewish heresy? Moslem heresy? Buddhist heresy? Hindu? Shinto? Sikh? Taoist? Gozerian? Atheist? Socialist? Darwinian? Scientism? Eugenicism?
Or, being Christo-Centric, do you wish only to consider Christian heresy? If so, which denomination? Catholic? Lutheran? Calvinist? Orthodox (by whatever qualifier; Eastern, Greek, Byzantium, etc) LDS? Protestant? Likewise, in pursuing your point, what is your intention in examining such a confined segment of an obviously large context?
Indeed, apparently you do wish only to discuss heresy within the narrow confines of Christianity (not even considering the greater accurateness of acknowledging the wider context of Judeo-Christian Tradition), and to restrict yourself further to the Euro-centric margins of Thirteenth Century RC doctrine.
In post #19, this thread, I delivered a definition of heresy from my MAC OSX dictionary:
heresy • belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (esp. Christian) doctrine
and a second definition:
heresy • opinion profoundly at odds with what is generally accepted
further noting the definition’s peculiar emphasis on a Christian orientation to heresy (id est, “esp. Christian”) when the subject has now existed in a much wider context for centuries (a fact that the MAC’s definition likewise acknowledges, but what you apparently do not wish to do). The definition exists in a primarily Western culture, so perhaps it is not especially notable that the definition is framed within a Christian context (although my above objection stands).
My 1953 edition of Merriam-Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, obtained for college in the summer of 1954, likewise has a very similar definition to my MAC’s, but without the emphasis on Christian doctrine, and likewise including a very similar 2nd definition.
The 1937 edition of Webster’s Universal Unabridged Dictionary list the following definitions:
heresy •
1. A doctrine, opinion, or set of opinions or principles at variance with established or generally received principles; an opinion or doctrine tending to create division; an unsound or untenable doctrine of any kind, as in politics, morality, philosophy, etc.
2. In theology, a doctrine or opinion that is contrary to the fundamental doctrine or creed of any particular church; an error of opinion respecting some fundamental doctrine of religion.
3. In law, an offense against Christianity, consisting in a denial of some of its essential doctrines, publicly avowed, and obstinately maintained.
Although providing a much expanded definition (it’s an unabridged edition) of the word, this edition demonstrates that the meaning of the word has changed not a whit over my lifetime, and that it is essentially a confirmation of the more compact dictionaries commonly found today.
Going back further, an examination of the 1828 dictionary, facsimile First Edition American Dictionary Of The English Language, by Noah Webster, shows a most remarkable similarity to all of the cites above.
So it appears that there is plenty of heresy to go around. Catholic heresy (an older variety) which would think any Protestant doctrine to be heresy; Protestant heresy (the “protest” being against the tyranny of “priests and kings”) which drove the forebears of our founding fathers to America’s shores (including Catholics looking to escape the tyranny of Protestant England); Moslem heresy, which saws off the heads of “infidels” or any Moslem heretic who strays from prescribed Moslem practice; Hindu heresy (witness the great upheaval tearing India apart after WWII, which erupted between Hindu and Moslem); the sporadic outbreaks of violence perpetrated by Buddhists and Sikhs; or witness the Science heresy perpetrated when Dawkins declares that Science proves that no Gods exist (would you, or anyone, care to suggest that much of what is proposed above is not politically driven?).
Speaking of politics, consider both the Democrat heresy hysteria or, equally the Repubic heresy hysteria that erupts whenever a Conservative acclaims the virtues of the First or Second Amendments, or offers most any remark about Liberty or Justice; or the heresy spastic reaction of 0bamatrons at the suggestion of any issue concerning welfare reform, immigration reform, education, or budgetary control at any local, state, or federal level.
American politics has become an issue purely about control of the People, and virtually everything said or done becomes someone’s heresy, whether they chose to frame it in that expression, or not. It’s too late for you to attempt to regain your propagandist talking points by confining the word “heresy” to the narrow meaning your purposes require.
“...witness the Science heresy perpetrated when Dawkins declares that Science proves that no Gods exist (would you, or anyone, care to suggest that much of what is proposed above is not politically driven?).”
Spirited: With respect to “Science heresy,” let us not forget that Marxist Communists called their “religion” of evolutionary naturalism, Scientific Socialism. Furthermore, history shows that there has been no “religion” more intolerant of “heretics” and more willing to exterminate “heretics” (60,000,000 + men, women, and children) than the Mullahs of Scientific Socialism.
Nor has their ferocious intolerance subsided.
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.