Honey and it's an important topic change imho.
Where the two overlap is the 2nd Amendment.
Without the timeline of the US Constitution, although many people have tried to bend the rules, there is a loss of the freedom of religion(vs 'religion').
Anyone can break any laws to become violent, organize and label themselves a 'religion' however, the US was founded on Judeo-Christian principles (the top 10 commandments and the 7 Laws of Noah-also found in Catholocism) The protection of the freedom of religion is for the people, whereas the legal system enforces the protections through secular law(not to enforce the rules of religion but the rules of the protection of the freedom of the people, to without debate freely have various religions that are non-violent from within or against each other.
The debate or the threat to the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution seems to be coming from radical groups that use violence to organize and support pseudo religions for the purpose to destroy religion/cultural differences and the Constitution itself, within America. The foundations of America (for the people) have always allowed for people who don't believe but, not those whose disbelief begins to corrupt the legal system's support to weed out the social corruption that ends in violence and hatred of the Constitution itself.
The focus is not at all on this which really encourages divisiveness bent on violence and hatred, rather than pro-activeness and unity in the support of basic Constitutional rights. That spreads into other areas where the health care debate has landed on people fighting for lack of age-discrimination or discrimination based on health. However, it began as an acceptance of the dissemination of the functionality of the 2nd Amendment.
It is mind-boggling because GW saw the need to extend the message so loudly, he wrote and passed, with the support of a majority in lawful positions, the Hate Crime Bill however, the majority of people who support it (and by consequence the US Constitution, the US troops, a safe America, etc., etc.) are labelled traitors?
Dismantling the rest of Constitution is not going to restore National Peace, either. Without National Peace the dismantling of civilian rights is threatened to the point anyone even has to think that excluding people from health care based on age or health is a Constitutional point to start changing anything from. But, that is what is happening and presented as legitimate and/or safe for Americans when clearly it would destroy America. And, all minorities are being blamed, adding to the insanity of 'change' that is merely a continuation of 9/11 with the blessings of mass $'s and organizers of those $'s who don't care about the rights allowed under the Constitution and truly believe killing the 2nd Amendment along with the first, will create world peace.
imho, the process won't change until those who support it, in office are brought to justice. imho, unless that is what the protests seek to accomplish, instead of continuing the divisiveness that is so un-American between and amongst individuals fighting for their own share vs understanding when one loses we all lose and no one will see anything, let alone peace, America's voice falls divided, with all of America very close behind.
It's very sad to watch because most everyone knows it is the worst of human rights abuses that weakens the entire nation, including our borders and our troops.
It's also the wrong way to learn to feel the value of the US Constitution but, I honestly think those who let it happen believe it is the right way or worse, a mandatory lesson for America. It seems very linked with the apologizing for America, imho. Right there, 1/2 the feeling is lost in the process and people are looking for it when it never left the nation - it's leaving the legal system and imho, that is what and where the issue is.
I think it's a mistake to let it reach into society by the infighting although I have no clue what it takes to truly stop it when it(the letting of 1/2 the feeling towards the Constitution's value) seems to be entrenched in the legal system and turned away from the rights of the people as a result of upholding the Constitution. I really don't know.
However, you mention a very valid point - some things are ok to debate and other things, if debated, can destroy any valid point for debating in the first place.
It's very Orwellian. Orwel had a final page to his insanity and he needed a functional Constitution to get published.
Gd and the Founding Father's of America didn't. It was pure love. THAT is what some people are closing their eyes to and others never wanted to be open to. The law is permanent. Anyone who disagrees with the Constitution, as written, is blaming the people for not electing Orwell and/or realizing Orwellian thinking does not a strong America make, nationally OR internationally, imho.
Take care, also.
