>>(snip)
>
>I am re-including this for context for my response below.
>
>The thing with Constitutional rights is that the Constitution itself provides a mechanism to remove those rights which society has determined should no longer exist. Until such time, they shall be upheld less we dilute all rights. See privacy, speech, property and any number of today's headlines for numerous examples of what happens when rights are diluted.
>
>>>>>>Having uncritical faith in something like the US Constitution is much like that other kind of faith, organized religion. One of the side effects is one no longer has to think.
>>>>>
>>>>>And now you've dove into the deep pool of insults as debate tactic. The US Constitution IS the supreme law of the land. We are a nation of laws not men. If we do not operate within the framework set forth to govern the country then there is no country.
>>>>
>>>>That was a statement of pure fact; if you choose to interpret it as an insult, then so be it.
>>>
>>>One of the side effects is one no longer has to think.
>>>
>>>How is that not an insult?
>>
>>I think it might be a misunderstanding. If one uncritically follows an ideology, then one does not have to think if the ideology provides an answer for the question at hand.
>
>Above I have re-included the portion of my response prior to your statement regarding uncritical faith. I was pointing to the Constitution for my response and you answer with "Having uncritical faith in something like the US Constitution". It is clear that you are framing me as one of such faith. When you continue by then declaring that such faithful "no longer have to think" the implication is clear.
>
>FWIW : If you had posted a new message stating "One of the side effects of having uncritical faith in xxx is that you no longer have to think", I completely agree.

I specifically used "one" instead of "you" in that phrase ("one" no longer has to think). That's an impersonal observation. Bear in mind I'm a Canadian of English extraction; as an American it seems you may interpret that differently: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/one.htm