New Matrixism Following the 'Path of the One' to enlightenment

I am unsure how to approach what I thought was going to be my initial topic without sound too shallow.  Therefore, I am unsure of exactly what to say.  I'll try to say something though.  I currently live in the US (though that may not be the case in the future).  I often find myself fascinated with the claim that there exists a separation of church and state in this country and how that actually plays out, or actually, it doesn't.  

The biggest thing personally, and what I was intending to originally talk about, is the Pledge of Allegiance.  I am part of an organization that meets every few weeks and a large number of its members like reciting the pledge at the start of the meetings.  I politely stand up during this, but I don't say anything.  I don't recite the pledge for several reasons, one of which is the religious statement in it: "one nation under God".  The fact that this pledge is recited at many governmental meetings goes against the idea of the government not establishing a religion that all must follow.  Some people don't believe in any form of higher power.  Some people's beliefs include multiple gods but not a single, all powerful "God."  Others, like myself, have faith in a higher power, but hesitate to refer to that higher power as "God."

Over time there have been attempts to add references to "God" more in the Pledge of Allegiance.  The current battle in regards to letting gay and lesbian couples frequently revolves around religion and the Bible.  Religious fundamentalists, who claim to be conservative republicans, claim that this country was founded as a Christian nation and if we don't want to go along with that we can leave it.  To me these ideals go against the way this country was really founded, so that we each can practice our religion without fear of reparation from the government.  

In some ways I fear that discussing this would seem shallow or inappropriate, particularly after this weekend's events in Arizona with the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords.  I wonder if there is a point at which a person have idea about how a country should be run and at what point they are a domestic terrorist.  Where is the line between being an extremist and a revolutionary hero.  On Friday, what was Jared Lee Loughner?  Was he an evil person?  Dangerous?  A man with mental problems?  Or someone who disagreed with how his country was being run, the same as many others in the same nation.  

This brings up another set of questions in the aftermath of the shooting.  Everyone is quick to blame the other side.  Conservatives blame the liberals because Jared's favorite books were "The Communist Manifesto" and "Mein Kampf."  Liberals point fingers at conservatives for their love of guns and shooting metaphors.  What good does it do to point fingers and lay blame?  Why do we continue to be so polarized to our own detriment?  Why don't we try to find some middle ground in which we can use to work together?  Why is having things only your way more important than trying to fix what is broken?

There are lots of questions that I have which I cannot answer.  It are these questions that I see mounting up that makes wonder how long this country really has left before it tears itself apart (again).