The American Heretics

@gewcew23 (8011)
United States
March 7, 2008 8:03am CST
To begin my discussion I must explain what a heretic is. A heretic is anyone that holds unorthodox opinions. Example would be someone claiming to be a Christian yet not believing in the Resurrection. There is no point in being a Christian if you do not believe in the basic standard of Christianity. Go find another religion, that suit your beliefs. Now I must say this is not a religious discussion, but I wanted to make an example. Now onto what an American Heretic is. An American Heretic would have to be anyone that does not believe in the standards that this country was built on. Over 200 years ago a group of great men came together and from this country. What makes them great is what they left us to use today. No I am not talking about their houses that would be turn into museums, or the government building that we use to this day. No I am talking about the Constitution. United States of America stands for something. That Constitution stands for something. You cannot separate the two. So here my premise for this discussion: take the politics of McCain, Clinton, and/or Obama. Does any of their politics, ideas actually line up with the Constitution. Would any of their policies have been ever made law during the late 17 hundreds, the 18 hundreds, or even the early 19 hundreds. So if their politics, policies, and ideas would not have past the Constitutional "mustard" back then, so why should it pass now. Look folks you do not have to live in this country, even if you were born here. If you do not like this country and wish it was like another, well go live in that country. Just like religions you do have a choice. If people can immigrate to this country you can migrate to another. Why should we ruin what this country has stood for, so you can be happy.
2 responses
@Latrivia (2889)
• United States
7 Mar 08
You contradict yourself, I've noticed. If a heretic is one who holds unorthodox views, then Hillary, Obama, and McCain are far from heretics. Orthodox beliefs are merely commonly accepted beliefs. If the majority of Americans support those three, then much of the commonly accepted beliefs are the ones that those three hold (otherwise, the majority wouldn't support them). Therefore, their views are orthodox. The constitution is the law - not a set of beliefs. The beliefs arise with the interpretation of that law. 200 years ago the interpretation was different than it is today. Two hundred years ago, the 3 politicians in question would have been very much out of place. However, views have changed, and America has become a different nation. Government organizations sift through your communications legally thanks to the legislation of an incompetant administration. Hand outs have become all too common. Pre-emptive war is becoming accepted amoung those who fear too much, and know too little. Knowledge of the real law is diminishing, and is being replaced instead by "big-brother" laws, and by laws people want created because "it makes them feel good" (regardless of whether or not it tramples on the rights of others). Dear, stupidity and lack of adherence to our constitution has become the norm. McCain, Obama, and Hillary are not the heretics - they're the shepards of the mass flock of sheep that make up the majority of America. It's the people who still believe the constitution is the highest law in the land and should not be changed for 'feel good' laws that have become the 'heretics'. Though I prefer to think of them as the independent minded minority.
1 person likes this
@gewcew23 (8011)
• United States
8 Mar 08
I cannot accept that I am a heretic. I believe in the Constitution. I believe when it says freedom of speech, I believe that it means freedom of speech. I believe when it says freedom of religion, I believe that it means freedom of religion. I believe in the right to bear arms. If the Constitution says it, it must be law. I believe that if it is not in the Constitution it should not be law. All I am saying is if someone chooses not to live by our countries guildlines then should they not find a new country.
• United States
8 Mar 08
Sure, Obama wouldn't even have been allowed to vote in the 18th and 19th century. The country has come along way since then. Things change. The country is more than the constitution, and the constitution is not set in stone.
@gewcew23 (8011)
• United States
8 Mar 08
I am not talking about the man but he's politics. If there are not stanards then we have not country. Why do you believe that the constitution is not set in stone. What if someone said that MyLot was not protected by the first amendment. Since you do not believe in standards, then anything can go. What if one day someone said that we need to bring back slavery, you said that the constitution is not set in stone. This country was founded by the constitution, it is the standard that the federal government lives by.