But I missed a class by accident today-- which I'll explain on YouTube (See
my latest video.). As for my other class today (for a lack of a better term, and without saying "Antimissionary"), Non-Messianic professor who may be very liberal alert!-- although I'm not sure; but I think that a professor who openly wears a
kippah, teaches at liberal UMBC (at which I am amazed that I have not been persecuted for watching FOX News on my dorm floor's community television, by the way), and has the following response to
what was originally a Blackboard post is certainly Non Messianic and probably very liberal (whereas many or even most Jewish conservatives and moderates usually tread carefully on the outward symbolism, unless they're on the other extreme-- Far Right or even Meir Kahanist-- at least in America. Most Jewish conservative and moderates, for a lack of a better term, play it safe on showing outward religiosity. Think of many Modern Orthodox Jews who one can't tell are Orthodox just by looking at them-- for example, Michael Medved and Dennis Prager, and even Mark Levin).
By the way, most Messianic Jews (including myself) who I've seen usually don't go showing our
Yiddishkeit the way that Non-Messianic Jews do when they do-- many or even (I daresay) most Messianic Jews are much like most secular Non-Messianic Jews and Reform Jews, gentile Christians, and others who show (for a lack of a better term) little to no outward religiosity. For comparison; take most secular Non-Messianic Jews and Reform Jews, and mainstream gentile Christians who might have only a bumpsticker on a car or keychain (whether the bumpsticker or keychain be a URJ or JCC sticker, or an
Ichthys sticker or keychain), or a necklace (be the necklace a
Magen David, cross, or
Magen David-and-cross or an other Messianic Jewish-symbol necklace), or a copy of
Tanakh (either with or without the
Brit Hadashah) in a pocket, purse or other bag, or car.
As for the response on Blackboard:
"I appreciate your passion and the fact that you took time to comment. Please continue to do so throughout the semester.
But please also cut out the polemic language and try to keep your posts as concise as possible. I want the discussion boards to be a friendly place. It's possible to be passionate and opinionated, while also being polite and concise--and doing so will make this forum a lot more effective.
If you have any questions about these guidelines, please speak with me.
Again, I look forward to hearing what you have to say!"
What was apparently "polemic" and not "polite and concise"? I can more than guess. For example:
- ""Like the Bible, it ought to be read again and again". (FDR via Epstein and Walker 1) In my personal opinion, no wonder FDR was an Anti Semite: that is, he treated the Constitution-- a living document-- and the Bible-- a fixed document-- as on the same par: that is, he thought that each was a document into which could read his own interpretation and thus implement said interpretation with the supposed support of said document. As FDR read Anti Semitism into the Bible, many have read their own interpretations into the Constitution."
That FDR was an Anti Semite is known fact. Even liberal Wikipedia cites that FDR did not support a Jewish State in "Palestine".
- "The late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall correctly stated that "the framers 'could not have imagined, nor would they have accepted, that the document they were drafting would one day be construed be a Supreme Court to which had been appointed a woman the descendant of an African slave.'" (ibid. 6) The Constitution was inherently "'defective from the start'" (ibid.) because of its status as a living, amendable document and scarily framed by WASP Supremacist, Unitarian, and Deist misogynists who treated the Bible in the same way that FDR later would-- and by treating the Bible as such, they framed the Constitution based on their inherently UnJewish and UnChristian concept of (for a lack of a better term) Judeo Christianity (or at least Judeo-Christian priniciples).As in the awful perversion of Biblical study known as modern Biblical scholarship, Constitutional scholarship has produced schools of original intent, textualism, and original meaning-- all three of which (in the case of Constitutional scholarship) harken back to what the framers (often chauvinistically, WASPishly, Unitarianistically, and Deistically wanted); and stare decisis, polling jurisdictionism, and pragmatism-- all three of which seek to interpret and implement the Constitution within the context of changing times and other factors."
Again, the professor wants me change historical fact. The framers indeed (as, of all people, Newt Gingrich once cited in a special based on one of his books for FOX News) were 95% Unitarian and Deist (if not 95% just Unitarian). Also, the 3/5-of-a-person clause and the lack of the 19th Amendment spoke for that "the framers 'could not have imagined, nor would they have accepted, that the document they were drafting would one day be construed be a Supreme Court to which had been appointed a woman the descendant of an African slave.'"
I can't change that "The Constitution was inherently "'defective from the start'" (ibid.) because of its status as a living, amendable document and scarily framed by WASP Supremacist, Unitarian, and Deist misogynists who treated the Bible in the same way that FDR later would-- and by treating the Bible as such, they framed the Constitution based on their inherently UnJewish and UnChristian concept of (for a lack of a better term) Judeo Christianity (or at least Judeo-Christian priniciples)."
Yet, I get a professor who gives much a pass to FDR and the framers of the Constitution as Shmuely Boteach gave to Mohamedians (and in comparison to Christians) on Geraldo Rivera's radio show. He (like Shmuely Boteach) has no problem blatantly implying that he's of the school that says that Jews must be both outwardly religious and proudly Democratic as you can get-- apparently, G-d forbid that one can have a moderate or conservative, factual view of history and try to assimilate as much as possible so as not to bring trouble on him- or her-self or anyone else. I'm just saying, wearing a kippah that openly and being liberal to the point of being revisionist is inviting stereotypes from and wrong rubs toward both fellow Jews and gentiles.
.gif)
