We live today in an information age where with the help of computers and the Internet, society has a wealth of easily accessible information at its fingertips. To facilitate the organization and accessibility of the vast amount of information the Internet provides, search engines were realized. These search engines adhere to a fairly strict doctrine of providing a user with any information queried.

In recent news, the Department of Justice has subpoenaed four major search engines for data on the nature of the information being searched on the Internet. This is being done in an effort to revive Anti-Pornography laws. The Justice Department is asking for every search that has been processed by each of the search engines within the course of one week without giving identifying information of the individuals who performed the searches. They also requested a random sampling of one million websites than can be searched on each of the four search engines’ databases. Three of the four search companies have complied at least partially with the subpoena, though one has refused outright. Google, the Internet’s largest and most popular search engine, is resisting the government’s demands stating that the company would be helping the government spy on their users.

Based on the criteria for heresy established by Belloc and Wilhelm, Google in this case is acting heretically. Search engines follow closely to the system of belief that they are to provide anyone with any information that they possess. Google formally establishes this doctrine on their website which states that their mission “is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible.” Google is diverging from this doctrine by not relinquishing the data that the government is requesting. According to Belloc and Wilhelm, to be considered a heretic, one denies a part of the whole doctrine while obeying the remaining portion. Google is fulfilling the requests of all individuals except that of the government, thus, acting in a heretical fashion.

There is a group, floating in the pop culture ocean, which refers to its members as “Britney Spears worshippers.” The name of this group very much describers what they’re about: they worship the Pop Goddess known to us, mere mortals, as Britney Spears. They own all of her albums and DVDs, including “Crossroads”, they use words such as “bombastic” in their everyday vocabulary just because it’s the title of a Spears song, but above all they see Britney Spears as a can-do-no-wrong idol, causing them to be in a constant struggle with the “I Hate Britney Spears Club.” This last part of their core beliefs has given rise to a group of heretics among the Spears worshippers, these heretics are dedicated fans; however, they would disagree with the claim that Britney Spears is an infallible being, citing her recent matrimony to Kevin Federline as the main reason for questioning her judgment.
This is not the first time that Britney has done something which infidels might call insane or just plain ridiculous. Wearing skirts with Uggs® , going into a gas-station bathroom barefoot or her blink-and-you-will-miss-it marriage with Jason Allen Alexander, were things that Britney worshippers were able to shrug off as quirks of their adored pop star, which made her all the more interesting and unique. But her marriage to Kevin Federline was way more than some Worshippers could handle. At first, they thought whatever made Britney happy made them happy, but without a new album or tour in sight, some Britney worshippers are asking themselves, “What were you thinking Britney?!”
Some heretics have qualified Britney as an idol whose inability to err can only be applied to the songs and music videos she produces, but whose personal life is more human than would prefer to admit.
While many Britney Spears fans may be divided by the manner in which Britney manages her personal life, all of them stand together when they claim that the “I Hate Britney Spears Club” members are just jealous of Britney’s talent and good looks. In the end, we can only sit and watch as Britney Spears says “Oops, I did it again.”

Today many people who call themselves Christians do not typically agree with or follow everything the Bible teaches. Although they may believe that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, they may not typically think it is wrong to have pre-marital sex. They also may believe that Jesus is the son of God, however, they may not believe that abortion at an early stage is wrong. Even these "liberal Christians" that may believe that both abortions and pre-marital sex are wrong are still very tolerant of these things. Just because we live in a more modern world, it does not mean that it is alright to make our moral beliefs more modern as well. By agreeing, or just even being tolerant of these situations we are being heretical as christians. It is stated in the Bible that these things are an abomination to God, so by not standing up against these things and just letting them occur, possibly in even our own lives we are basically telling God that we are turning against him on these subjects; being a heretical Christian. These subjects of pre-marital sex, abortion, same-sex marriages, and drunkenness all seem to be more and more tolerated by christians. It is said in the Bible that sex is to be saved for marriage only, and that it will be a great gift at that time for your spouse. Abortion is stated basically as commiting murder. God destroyed an entire city because of homosexuals and other sins being commited in Sodom and Gomorrah. Also he says that drinking is not a sin but that drunkenness is. Jesus even had wine at the dinner table for the Last Supper yet was not drunk. Even though it is stated in the Bible that we will all fall short and sin against God, it is not said in the Bible to do these things just because we know that we will be forgiven by God. We can see that the world we live in has fallen shorter and shorter with its moral standing, yet we as Christians, are not supposed to be of the world and its worldly things. We are supposed to be in the world living as Christ lived and showing as an example to other non-believers. Growing up in this modern world today also is harder just because of the peer pressure our friends may give to us, but we are supposed to make wise decisions and also choose Godly friends that would hopefully not put us in any situation like that in the first place. As modern as our world has become some of us may feel that some of these major issues are becoming more lenient in society, but they are not supposed to be supported and tolerated by Christians. That is being heretical as a Christian and not standing up for what you believe in.

As recntly as last night I met someone who follows the way of the Maronites. It is a religious sect that is quite prominent in Lebanon and originated at Antioch. It is after all a Christian religion and follows Catholic doctrine in almost all aspects and only differs when discussing the nature of Christ. It claims that Christ although he had one will, he was made up of two natures, one man and one god. This is considered the Monolethite heresy that was developed under Patriarch Sergios during the reign of Heraclius. This was highly controversial and was discussed at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. The Maronites held fast to their beliefs and for a time held themselves an independant church. Before this they had been under the rule of the catholic church who had gathered around a religious hermit St. Maron to form a new church. However, the Maronites were brought back under the rule of the Catholic church by Pope Hormisdas in 518 and have continued with full sanctions to this day. This should be considered a heresy because while the Maronites are fully committed to the ways of Catholicism to this day, they split their beliefs at a crucial point on the divinity of Jesus and yet they remain with the full blessing of the Catholic Church. So, obviously nobody is currently denouncing this as heresy and yet it could easily be seen as one. Following Wilhelm and Belloc's definition of a heretic as someone who remains faithful to a certain ways of thinking and yet chooses to ignore or distort certain key aspects of the line of thinking you could easily contrue this. It was after all defined as the Monolethite heresy and a council was formed to discuss it and yet it remains to this day.

The United States has gone under a significant policy change when it comes to the Constitution. President Bush opened the debate on Civil Unions to the public when he took a stance on the issue during his 2004 re-election campaign. He sighted passages from the Bible (ie) “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female,” and condemned those who participated in homosexual acts. However, the United States public opinion has decided to allow a policy of Civil Unions, which acts as non-religious marriage license.

The heresy lies with the admission of homosexual marriage being morally corrupt, but allowing for homosexual Civil Unions that recognize same sex couples. Pope John Paul II accepted those who are homosexual as long as they did not indulge in a homosexual lifestyle. Pope John Paul II had a coherent and straightforward stance on homosexuals, rather then the contradictory policy set forth by the United States government. The United States government has moved further away from the Church by taking the stance that homosexual marriage is wrong, but civil unions are acceptable. The church does not acknowledge civil unions, but in a modern society it seems that when the church disagrees with one lifestyle the public will create a loophole for acceptance.

In Wilhelm’s text, he specifically outlines that those who accept one portion of the doctrine and not another are heretics. He also asserts that those who engage in marriage and then ask for a divorce are also heretics. With both of these understandings coupled with the heretical practice of modernism, the modern day practice of homosexual civil unions is heresy. Essentially, civil unions take an institution like marriage and create another alternative, driving a wedge between Christianity and marriage within society. A heresy is also defined as something that propels people away from the Church. Those who are homosexual but do not choose to live a life of celibacy as stipulated by the Pope are heretics. Civil Unions create a modern day alternative to marriage, contradict the doctrine set forth by the Catholic Church, and bring others away from the Church doctrine.

Most Christians know just by association that Jesus Christ, the founder of the Christian Religion, was born from the Virgin Mary and rose from the dead after His crucifixion. This has been the belief for a very long time up until the “Enlightenment” when scholars began to question Christ’s divinity. In Albert Mohler’s commentary, he explains why other scholars and writers have gone against the notion that Christ was of a virgin and resurrected from the dead. The heretics central argument is that it is impossible for anyone to be from a virgin birth and accomplish a resurrection. They believe in the philosophy that Jesus taught but not in the supernatural events that surrounding Him and said that the story of His birth was a myth. Their conclusion seems to be that the virgin birth and resurrection was designed to be a symbol, nothing more, nothing less. The forerunner of this idea was Bishop Joseph Sprague of the United Methodist Church.. He believed that Jesus came from a normal pair of parents and was extremely blessed. To Sprague, Jesus wasn’t born the Christ but rather became the Christ through the grace of God. He was actually charged for heresy but was cleared twice. This shows that the Churches cant stop this contemporary belief that Jesus was not completely divine. Nonetheless this is a heresy, Sprague still retains belief in what Jesus taught but doesn’t belief in the one fundamental idea that Jesus was from virgin birth and was resurrected In order to be a heresy he must believe in part of the doctrine he was speaking out against. The very idea he was presenting though has some great controversy. This passes all of the parameters that both Belloc and Willhelm have stated. Sprague rejected the idea of Jesus coming from a virgin birth and replaced it with Him coming from normal parents. Also as Jesus being born the Christ as so many believe but rather Him becoming the Christ. Sprague doesn’t reject Jesus completely nor His teachings so therefore he is a heretic and not an apostate.

It's no surprise. It's been everywhere in the news recently. Tom DeLay, the former house Majority Leader, has been taking financial bribes, bribes in the form of lavish trips, using illegal methods of campaign financing from illegal contributions, and used vicious methods to keep the Republican majority.

There are records that have been discovered that blatantly reveal him in the act, and it comes as no big surprise that even after considering to reclaim his coveted Majority Leader status he has given up. Yet, if you were to walk up to Mr. DeLay today and ask him if he's a true patriot that accepts the constitution he would without a doubt say yes. At the same time, this man is deregulating federal industry laws that protect small businesses, snaking through campaign finance laws, dramatically affecting election turn outs as well as certain individual’s incomes, and at the very heart is hurting the very citizens that the constitution set out to protect. This is not patriotism; this is capitalism and selfish personal regard in the highest form. In the past, whenever Mr. DeLay is under attack by ethics committees, investigative committees, or individuals in the house or senate he simply dismisses them as personal, partisan attacks on his character and continues his crooked ways until the recent indictment that has forced him to relinquish his key position as Majority Leader. It should seem ironic that one of Delay’s key points for gaining a position into the government was his criticism on the lobbying system and its influence on people’s wealth. Rather than buck this system as he promised to do while in the minority, Mr. DeLay became its undisputed master as the Majority Leader that we all came to know.

This is what I feel categorizes him as a heretic by the criteria given by Belloc and Wilhelm. He has accepted the constitution, but seems to bend it to his own means while omitting certain key parts of it to his own convenience, in a similar fashion that Creflo Dollar bends the teachings of the bible and omits certain key lessons to justify his financial situation. Now, this isn't to say that there aren't other people in the government who are corrupt heretics as well by this standard, as Washington is full of them. However, Mr. Delay soars above them all like a black headed eagle.

Moderates, on the political spectrum, have always seemed to me to be the wisest members of government. They are able to take the best of both parties and blend them sufficiently enough to a point where it’s a win-win result. Unfortunately, “moderate” is not an official political party. Congressmen, and other political entities, who choose to take the moderate route, still are registered to a single political party. This is complete understandable as more often then not, they believe what that particular party has to say. Sometimes, however, a particular situation comes along where they must go against what the rest of the party thinks is best. Those who are firmly entrenched in their own political party sometimes believe that those who consider themselves as moderate, to be “straddling the fence”. Some might even go so far as to call them heretics.

More often then not, when talking about a person being a moderate, you usually think of them being member of one of the two major political parties of today, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. There are many issues being disputed between the two parties today, but at the moment, we are discussing a dispute between a single party. To be specific, the withdrawal of troop from Iraq. Over generalizing the issue a bit, Democrats call for the immediate removal of troops. Moderate Democrats do not want the immediate removal of troops. Moderate Democrats want a somewhat patterned, cautious removal. Most Republicans, it seems, want the same thing.

Are the Moderate Democrats actual heretics? According to Wilhelm and Belloc, there first has to be an established doctrine in place before anyone can be a heretic of anything. Now, I wouldn’t say that the Democrats have some sort of scripture written out and sold in books stores, but it is a official party of the United States, where you must register to be a member. The whole reason someone would register for a political party would be if they believed in what the party stood for, it’s ideals and goals and it’s stance on certain issues. One could say that a member of the party subscribes to the Democratic faith.

Another caveat to being a heretic includes someone has to believe in this doctrine while also excluding a part of it and/or shaping that part to their own purposes. They are not denying the party as a whole, other wise they wouldn’t call themselves Democrats. While Moderate Democrats claim to be a part of that party, they take a different view from the party on this particular issue, the slow planed removal, rather then an immediate withdrawal. Along with this comes the condition of firmly believing this change of one’s own free will. How else would a politician show his stubborn devotion to this change other then going public? Just last December, Congressman Udall was written about in a web article titled Udall Joins Moderate Democrats in Outlining Principles for Iraq Withdrawal. No political figure would willingly put their name on an issue unless they were firmly behind it.

Now, I don’t think that anyone will ever publicly announce (rather denounce) a somewhat large portion of the party by calling them all heretics. I also don’t think we will restart the time honored tradition of burning heretics at the stake, but with those criteria in mind, it could easily be said that Moderate Democrats are heretics of the Democratic Party.

Perhaps one of the greatest non-religious heresies in the entire history of the United States is the forced relocation and internment of thousands of innocent Japanese-American citizens in the 1942. According to the criteria that constitutes a heresy according to Wilhelm and Belloc, The treatment given to Japanese-Americans by the United States government relates perfectly to the definitions presented in both articles. Not only was the United States preceded by the notable reputation that it offered personal and public freedoms many countries deprived of their citizens, but its legal system, once thought just by Americans, was now in a whirlwind of contradiction and deceit. Although by law and the fourth amendment to the United States constitution these innocent and law-abiding citizens should have been in no way removed from their homes, the government simply eradicated part of a doctrine that they had stood by for over a hundred years! The very backbone of the legal system was standing incomplete. Furthermore, these actions were excused with many explanations as to why the Japanese were being evacuated, ranging from national security measures, to offering these men and women "better" opportunities in different locations of the United States. Suddenly, a nation that had emphasized so strongly that they protected their people had, without hesitation, turned savagely upon an entire group of them. These actions were continually justified by labeling those who were interned "dangerous" and "conspiring", even if some of the accused had been born in the states and had never made any connections outside of the country. In the opinion of Belloc in particular, this incident would be a severe heresy committed by the United States government and everybody involved in the implication of the program in discussion. Japanese internment would also undoubtedly fall under the context of "formal" heresy as described by Wilhelm, assuming that the government was extremely familiar with a document they have instilled in their minds and work with on a daily basis. This constitutes the free will and knowledge aspect of establishing whether or not something is indeed a heresy. Finally, the relocation of the Japanese-Americans is absolutely a heresy according to Wilhelm and Belloc because the notion that caused this massive, controlled immigration was adhered to for a prolonged period of time and was decidedly just in the eyes of those who were in control of it.

Human nature intrinsically desires to accept only that which is pleasing and advantageous to one's own way of life. Not in so much that whole ideologies are thrown out altogether, but moreso that people are heretics by nature, embracing those practices that are conveniently gratifying to our existence. Such is the case with pesco-vegetarians, those who profess vegetarianism in every area of their diet with the exception of fish.
A vegetarian, as defined by Webster, is "one who chooses not to consume flesh foods." These self-professed "vegetarians" eat a vegetarian diet but also consume fish. Pesco-vegetarians (also know as semi-vegetarians, or rather no vegetarians at all) avoid red meat and poultry because they do not want to condone factory farming or other inhumane methods of raising animals solely bound for the slaughterhouse. What is seen in the pesco-vegetarian people is compromise, and the battle is not lost in defeat, but in compromise with a creed or moral code. Belloc states that "[Vegetarian] society cannot carry on without some creed, because a code and a character are the product of a creed," thus pesco-vegetarians signal the deterioration in the virtue of vegetarianism (4). If the line by which vegetarians base their creed is pushed back to include fish, then it is best to forfeit all claims of animal provision sanctioned by the lifestyle. Afterall, this "straddle the fence" line of thinking amounts to nothing more than pesco-vegetarian dietary convenience than it does to animal protection in not consuming flesh foods. This compromising vegetarian way of life clearly and openly states a "fashioned at pleasure [doctrine]. . .which is the way of heretics" as described by Wilhelm (7).
Pamela Anderson, a long time animal advocate serves as PETA's (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) spokeswoman and representative. Established in 1980, PETA is an animal rights organization dedicated to "protecting the right of ALL animals. . .[they] are not ours to eat or wear." Anderson, although having just finished an undercover documentary named "Kentucky Fried Cruelty," remains an avid pesco-vegetarian. Anderson and other pesco-vegetarians have committed heresy in every sense of the word, forsaking key principles that prove to be the very foundation of a given creed.

Over the past five years, the college policy debate community has encountered the rise of teams that have chosen to break with several of the community’s defining principles and compete using a style known as project debate. Project debate represents a heresy against the dogma of the policy community by rejecting some of its key doctrines while still seeking to participate in the system as a whole. While not meeting the strict definition of heresy presented by Wilhelm and Belloc, it still parallels much of their analysis.

The bounds of the “college debate community” are easy to define, but its norms are difficult for outsiders to pin down. The community consists of those who regularly attend competitions, or tournaments, that are either sanctioned by or conducted in the style of either the American Forensic Association’s National Debate Tournament (NDT) or the Cross-Examination Debate Association’s national tournament (CEDA). The written rules of the AFA/NDT and CEDA are sparse and focus primarily on the structural aspects of debate, specifying eligibility standards, the structure of tournaments and individual rounds, and the precise wording for the year’s resolution, or topic. The bulk of college debate norms, however, develop through the way coaches and judges pass on notions of what arguments and tactics are good, and win rounds, and which are unacceptable or irrelevant, losing rounds. This includes conventions on how debaters structure their ideas, their style of delivery, the types and sources of evidence that debaters may use to support their arguments, as well as the idea of debate being above all an educational game of words to be played out in a detached way.

Project debaters reject or modify several of these norms while still adhering to other norms as well as the structural aspects of debate. The defining element of project debate is the way it frames debate as a site for actual change, or political projects, both within and outside the debate community, instead of simply being a game one plays for its educational value. From this fundamental shift, a few other norms are also broken; instead of weighing a round based on how a hypothetical world would change if one side’s arguments became reality, project debaters ask judges to vote on the potential for actual change as a result of the round itself. Instead of debating a literal interpretation of the resolution as presenting this hypothetical decision, project debaters often move in directions related to the topic without committing to its precise wording. Instead of delivering technically complex and, to the layperson, unintelligible arguments, project debaters often focus on making debates accessible to better enable real-world change.

Though Wilhelm and Belloc write primarily about Christian heresy, and project debate is not directly in conflict with the Catholic church, parallels can still be drawn. The breaks described above are heretical primarily because while they challenge key norms of debate, project debaters still seek to participate in the codified structures of debate, and still share other values, such as the educational value of debate (though they differ on the means by which that education is accessed). The advocates of project debate are passionate defenders of their beliefs, defending their ideas whenever they are challenged in public forums. While there is no well-defined head authority in college debate to be refused, it can be argued that project debaters do refuse the authority of the community as a whole. And if the opponents of project debate are right, project debate may become the undoing of what the college debate community currently is, transforming it into something entirely different, at great peril to its values.

The use of prescriptive drugs for certain illnesses has always been a controversial issue because of side effects, the danger of becoming addicted, and just plain ethics. When Brooke Shields, a professed member of the Church of Scientology, announced that she had used the drug Paxil to relieve the symptoms of her Postpartum Depression, also know as PPD, many members of the Church saw this as an act of heresy.
The Church of Scientology was established in 1952 by L. Ron Hubbard, a so-called “visionary thinker,” to create a system that would improve both mental and physical health and improvement. One of the main points of Scientology is to cleanse the soul and to be a free-willed and –thinking spirit, and the way to achieve these goals is to be cleansed in the body, too, and not just in the mind. While the Church supports drug treatment and a variety of rehabilitation techniques, it does not support any type of drug-assisted living. It supports mental health reformation, such as overcoming depression and anxiety, but does not allow for any medication to enhance treatments for such diseases. Scientology believes that use of any non-natural drug is considered a “toxin” to the body and can “decrease mental alertness and perception,” resulting in a “barrier to spiritual freedom.”
By Shields’ decision to go against the Church’s ideals of not using any type of mind-altering drug, she considered an heretic in Scientology’s eyes. While the church suggests alternatives to antidepressants, such as vitamins, they see such other drugs as unnecessary and “dangerous.” Because she was so fearful of what would result of her PPD if it continued to remain untreated, Shields sought out professional medical help and took the action that she felt most necessary for her situation, and that was to be placed on the antidepressant Paxil. Not only have her actions been criticized by the Church of Scientology, but also her choice to speak out on her getting treatment has caused a large controversy. Some from the Church see her as being irresponsible and sending out a message that they don’t want to be associated with. The Church of Scientology feels that medication is to only help people “cope,” and “there is nothing that can cure them whatsoever.”
According to the guidelines for what is and isn’t a heresy set out by both Wilhelm and Belloc, Brook Shields did commit a heresy against the Church of Scientology. She still is a member of the Church and still holds on to a majority of their belief system, but she did defy them in one area, and holds strong to her waywardness on this issue. The decision to not use any mind-altering drugs is a major part of what Scientology is because they believe when one clouds the mind by using outside substances, their soul isn’t able to be free. Because of the hardiness of this doctrine, by defying it, Shields broke a lot of guidelines and crushed a lot of toes by acting the way she did. Scientology is said to be a system that anyone can be a part of, as long as they are willing to commit and to do what is asked of them. Shields entered into this Church on her own accord, and also defied it on her own accord. By speaking out on not only her use of Paxil to treat her PPD, but also on her support of women to seek help when they experience the same disease, Shields showed a tough layer of pertinacity because she felt what she did was right and that other women could benefit from her experience, too. She shows no regret or remorse for her actions and takes nothing back. Adding together all of the ingredients of her actions, it is easily proven that Brook Shields did in fact commit a heresy against the Church of Scientology because of her use of antidepressants to treat her illness, instead of following the suggested treatment of “vitamins.”

Four-term Massachusetts state senator and 2004 democratic U.S. presidential candidate, John Kerry continues to lead an esteemed political career. However, certain political beliefs, more specifically, being pro-choice, has caused some critics to see flaws in his persona, as his beliefs have heretical tendencies. John Kerry, as a democratic politician, has continuously supported pro-choice movements, or the right to choose, regarding the issue of abortion. At the same time, he has proudly practiced Catholicism, which, coincidently, was a platform he used to run for president.
According to both Hilaire Belloc and J. Wilhelm’s arguments, a major criterion of heresy is that the heretic denies part of the whole theorem, in this case Catholic ideals, while maintaining a similar overall belief system to the whole. John Kerry, as a claimed devout Catholic, was condemned for taking Eucharist, which Catholics believe to be the body of Christ, one of the major tenants of Catholicism. While participating in this sacrament of Communion, Kerry continued to convey his opinion on abortion publicly. It was this belief of individual’s pro-choice that contradicts with the Catholic Church’s stance on abortion, which strictly prohibits the act. Thus, because John Kerry continued participating in church mass and Communion, two very important facets of Catholicism, while publicly supporting abortions, he committed heresy, according to Belloc and Wilhelm.
The two articles on heresy both argue that the doctrine which has been violated or that is in question must have previously established a dignified status in society. Clearly, after centuries of an immense following, the Catholic Church has established itself as an extremely dignified institution. Simultaneously, the United States political system has also established itself as a reputable societal institution, adding to the validity of the systems involved. Here, again, Kerry’s mixed views fall into Wilhelm and Belloc’s category of heresy.
U.S. society and culture have become what they are today due to the right of free will. Every citizen of the United States is given the right to free will, choice, and expression – to learn, to worship, to believe, to say, to act. Senator Kerry, a lifetime American citizen, has not only exercised free will throughout his own life, but he has worked through politics to ensure this right to all other people. Kerry believes in the Catholic Church’s concept of Communion, while freely expressing his views of pro-choice abortion laws – both by his own free will. John Kerry here commits a more severe type of heresy, called formal heresy, which means that his beliefs were “informed” by free will. Heretical ideas are formulated by one’s own choice and using one’s own cognition, which Kerry has clearly demonstrated throughout his career as a politician.
Another aspect of heresy described by Wilhelm and Belloc involves obstinate pertinacity or adhesion, which states that heretics must hold stubbornly to their beliefs, even in the face of adversity. Kerry, after being openly criticized for his two-sided belief system, continued to strongly support pro-choice activists while strongly holding onto his Catholic faith. Not even the allure of the U.S. presidency could tear Kerry apart from his heretical values, as he continued to firmly state his side of each issue throughout his campaign.
Because the Catholic religion has maintained a stance vehemently opposed to abortion, many high-ranking members of the ecclesiastic community, including the late Pope John Paul II have stated that Catholic politicians supporting pro-choice “automatically excommunicate themselves” by using pro-choice as a political platform (www.defide.com). Condemnation and punishment from the Catholic community only takes place when a person overtly violates a valued code, which includes the act of heresy. Therefore, by contradicting some of his own Catholic faith, John Kerry displays clear tendencies of a heretic, according to the Catholic community.

The Holocaust is considered one of the lowest moments in world history. Most historians clearly define the Holocaust as the systematic extermination of Jews and other undesirable ethnic groups; however, some historians believe differently. According to Belloc and Wilhelm a heresy denies a part of an established system and fills in the gap with other information. Heresy is evident in Holocaust Revisionism which refutes many of the horrifying facts of the Holocaust. Revisionists do agree that there was a holocaust, but they do not believe that it was the Holocaust. They disagree that the Holocaust during World War II was any different than any other act of genocide in history. They argue that there have been many other holocausts, and that the Holocaust during World War II was largely blown out of proportion due to Hollywood.
The consensus among most historians is that during the Holocaust Hitler devised the “Final Solution,” a plan for exterminating all Jews. Revisionists do not deny that there was a “Final Solution.” They do, however, disagree that the Final Solution was a plan for extermination. They argue that instead it was a plan for the deportation and resettlement of Jews. They do not try to deny that the eventual outcome was to remove all the Jews from Europe. The revisionists maintain that although Jews were treated harshly during the War, there was never any intent to completely obliterate their ethnic group.
The revisionists also claim that the concentration camps were merely work camps- no one was sent to the camps to be killed. This claim becomes an important topic for debate especially when discussing the larger concentration camps like Auschwitz that were set-up to exterminate thousands of people daily. The revisionists combat this commonly held belief not by denying the presence of gas chambers (they are labeled on maps of the camps), but by saying that the gas chambers were used merely as units to sterilize the prisoners’ clothing prior to allowing them to enter the camp. They say that the notion of the gas chambers being used to kill thousands of people very day is physically impossible. They go on further to say that there is no evidence of mass cremations or burials even though pictures taken when the camps were liberated proves otherwise.
If there were no gas chambers, then the revisionists can go as far as to say that the number of Jews that died in the Holocaust is considerably fewer than six million. They argue that the number six million is an “irresponsible exaggeration” (Wikipedia). They do not try to say that no Jews were persecuted or killed during the Holocaust, but they tend to account for their deaths as mere war casualties that could have been suffered by anyone living in a war zone.
Most of the arguments presented by the Holocaust Revisionists stand on little documented fact. They grasp at loopholes in history to try to make their case. According to Wikipedia, revisionist ideas are illegal in some parts of Europe because they are considered to be anti-Semitic. Revisionists choose by their own free will, another critical criteria for heresy according to Belloc and Wilhelm, to stand their ground, denying many of the atrocities of the Holocaust that the world has come to accept as fact.