Whew, this argument went all over. But I just want to point out a pet peeve of mine. People follow the bible religiously because they think it is of divine origin and filled with perfect timeless wisdom of the ages and is infallible because it comes from a source greater than human comprehension. I'm an atheist, so I don't believe all that jazz, but that is why people follow it, even if it is to some kind of extreme ends. Same for the Quran, and other holy texts.
Now barring some wacked out religious view that God guided America into creation, why the hell do people treat the constitution as a religious document? It is not divine wisdom that endures for all eternity, the founding fathers were not superhuman with wisdom beyond the comprehension of the rest of humanity past present or future. They were philosophers with ideas on politics, and economics. Nothing more, nothing less. And they were writing for what they saw and thought in their own time. To think that they would have penned the exact same document word for word if they saw our modern world seems insane.
To say that you agree 100% with the constitution seems unlikely, but fine if it is so. But trying to say that under no circumstance should it even be changed or "re-interpreted" because it carries some sort of lofty timeless superhuman wisdom is absurd. The founding fathers were philosophers no different from modern or past philosophers, to say that they can't be contradicted by anyone ever no matter what the world looks like, or what we learn, is the same principle as following the edicts written by an ancient race of genocidal misogynistic barbarians because they were culturally and economically successful in their day.
You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.
