Originally On LinkedIn: Be A Boss Like D****d Tr**p & Reap What You Sow. For Example...

1. Resentment from your business' customers.
2. Resentment from many of your employees.
3. A crony- and pseudo-capitalist (since crony capitalism always is pseudo capitalist in) nature in your economy.
4. A workplace culture of low morale, less and cheapened productivity, and mafiosoism.
5. A stagnating and declining customer base.
6. Eventual risk on your bottom line, whether the risk hits overnight or precipitously comes down on your bottom line.
7. Fair and just removal from your unfairly-gained-in-the-first-place CEO position, in the same way that you unfairly fired those whom were testifying in a probe against you and your immoral, unethical, and illegal business practices; and prosecution against you because of your criminal and unscrupulous acts.

After the demonstration of all that Donald Trump has sowed (with the firing of James Comey being the final bad seed sowed), Donald Trump will absolutely reap getting impeached, removed from office, and prosecuted. Take a lesson from Donald Trump, then: criminality and unscrupulousness pays from your account, and you will be held to account. Especially no unearned executive privilege saves you from that, since earned executive privilege has saved other corrupt CEOs and executives when they've lost the right to it.

"May Day" Or Pray Day? By the Way...

My ultimate loyalty is to God and God alone. For what I care, Tr**p and others can try to pursue me with swords and other weapons, throw me into a harrowing darkness or fire, build gallows for me, or otherwise murder me. As I said before, all that I need to do is keeping speaking to God and speaking against Trump—after all:

1. How did Saul's end go, notwithstanding that David even mourned Saul (and like God, David did not delight in the death of the wicked)?
2. Daniel escaped the lions' den, and Daniel's friends escaped the furnace (As for Holocaust victims, by the way, I believe that God was with them in the gas chambers, the furnaces, the pits, etc., even though He chose to not deliver them out of the gas chambers, etc.. for whatever reason. There are those whom believe the contrary and know nothing about how "[Nebuchadnezzar] answered and said: 'Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.'" Whether you believe that the fourth man is an angel, even the angel of Yehovah, and/or even someone else is your call.) Darius later did teshuvah, and Nebuchadnezzar did overall teshuvah after the seven-year suspension on his rule.
3. Haman's own gallows were built for Mordechai by Haman, and Haman quickly learned the meaning of "Or so you thought!"
4. Elijah did not even have to be around when Jezebel met her brutal end.

There are other examples of those whom did not have to lift even a hand against specific enemies—for example, Moses never had to lay a hand on Pharaoh.

In conclusion, then, action without prayer means nothing—not even speaking up against an enemy means something without prayer, as Cyrus and others learned and relearned

"1 Thus saith Yehovah to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him, and to loose the loins of kings; to open the doors before him, and that the gates may not be shut: 2 I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight; I will break in pieces the doors of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron; 3 And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I am Yehovah, who call thee by thy name, even the God of Israel. 4 For the sake of Jacob My servant, and Israel Mine elect, I have called thee by thy name, I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known Me. 5 I am Yehovah, and there is none else, beside Me there is no God; I have girded thee, though thou hast not known Me; 6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside Me; I am Yehovah; and there is none else; 7 I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am Yehovah, that doeth all these things. {P}"

"hay hogan what about martin omaly's taxes on us in his last 8 years what did u do forget."

With all due respect:

You have no clue if you think that Governor Hogan can just automatically undo eight years of the Maryland voters' damage—since we as voters (even those of us whom voted for Ehrlich) need to take responsibility for the eight years prior to 2015. Besides, having a General Assembly whom generally pits itself against any Republican administration won't help get the O'Malley Administration tax initiatives repealed.

In Howard County (where, by the way, he had to quickly appoint a new sheriff after the Fitzgerald scandal), a microcosm of that can be seen: automatically undoing the Ulman Administration's and the County Council's Ulman Administration damaging initiatives won't happen overnight, especially since the County Council has four Democrats and one lone Republican—and by the way, in a county in which Jewish voters are expected to be Democrats (this, for example, despite that Ulman ran with one of the initiators of the abysmal Annapolis Conference ⃰, that Councilman Fox got elected at all is amazing—and of course, 80% of the County Council is generally pitted against a Republican Administration.

Also, Governor Hogan fought Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma—get a clue if you think that he had time and/or energy to even begin to try to repeal the O'Malley Administration tax initiatives (and Governor Hogan is not an authoritarian whom'd just override the assembly—if you want an authoritarian whom'd override a legislative body of any kind, look to the Donald Trump for whom Governor Hogan refused to vote). Besides, not even a full two years since Governor Hogan's case of Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma went into remission have passed.

In conclusion, the only way that you'll reverse eight years of damage by a Maryland-elected O'Malley Administration is to do what Governor Hogan is doing:

• Respect the will of Maryland's voting population—whose demographics he also needs to consider
• Call for the General Assembly to participate in bipartisan and interbranch cooperation
• Realize that the Hogan Adminstration battle is parallel to the much-smaller-scale Kittleman Administration battle—in which the Hogan Administration sometimes has to involve itself

 and

• Consider that nobody can just bounce back from even in-remission cancer, let alone Stage-Three Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma—especially when the General Assembly seems to want to deliberately drain any Republican governor of any energy and resources, let alone relatively-recently-in-remission Governor Hogan of day-to-day energy and other resources that he needs to have to affect any reversal of the damage that the O'Malley Administration caused.

⃰ O'Malley and Brown could've easily said, "Not in this city" and "Take it to another city"—by allowing an Annapolis Conference in which the Anti-Semitic "Palestinian" Authority participated, O'Malley and Brown were just as responsible for the Annapolis Conference as anyone else whom was involved with it.

"Golden Showers" & More Of Another Case Of Why Not All That Glitters Is Gold

1. I don't ever again want to hear anybody lambasting Bill Clinton—whom, along with Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump supported for years—if he or she will defend Donald Trump. Besides, bad enough is that Donald Trump has a jet worth $100 Million that actually has a sink that someone plated with 24k gold—so, conceivably, he could've had golden(-plated) showers—as the case turns out, and as I found out with Urban Dictionary, Donald Trump's "golden showers" aren't showering apparatuses that are made of gold. Again, Bill Clinton's a rich pervert and Donald Trump's not?
2. Donald Trump is continuing to try to ban press members whom disagree with him.
3. More and more evidence is coming out that Russia colluded with Trump (not the other way around, if you notice—unless the "golden showers" scandal does Donald Trump in, Ribbentrop is continuing to play Molotov).

What else can be said?

More And More Evidence Of Dangerous Trump

Needing to prove more and more that Trump is dangerous seems to be the case. What other evidence does one want, though, when:

1. Reince Priebus incriminated Russia?
2. Anti Semites continue to be emboldened by Trump?
3. Kellyanne Conway evaded questions re Russia?
4. A Jew who did absolutely nothing to defend his people may become his father-in-law's "senior adviser"?
5. Trump's buddy and 2013 candidate in Israel is none other than Agudat Yisra'el empowerer & monarch-complexed Benjamin Netanyahu? Besides, Trump has gotten worse since his "short little guys" comment in 1991, and Netanyahu has gotten worse since 1996 and his comeback after the 10-year reprieve with albe-not-perfect Barak, Sharon (whom even switched from Likud), and Olmert.

That Donald Trump is dangerous and surrounds himself with dangerous compatriots remains the point!

Unless God Delivers Us From Trump (And Worse Than Trump)...

We are going to Hell. After all, as if there wasn't enough evidence that Donald Trump is dangerous during the 2016 Election Cycle, new evidence has surfaced and is continuing to surface into 2017. For example:

1. Of course Trump won't attack Russia...yet, anyway—remember Molotov-Ribbentrop, anyone?
2. The Burlington Electric Department became a victim of Russian cyberterrorism—and likely Russian Anti-Semitic terrorism (After all, whose home state is Vermont?).
3. Sadly, Trump is—at best—looking like Kim Jong-Un and—at worst—even making Kim Jong-Un look mature. As RTed by someone whom I follow on Twitter (and which he followed up with a non-apology "apology" tweet:

Happy New Year to all, including to my many enemies and those who have fought me and lost so badly they just don't know what to do. Love!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 31, 2016

What other evidence that Donald Trump is dangerous does one need? As I've observed, at least a Hillary Clinton win would've brought in a repeat of the Bill Clinton years and two additional GOP Congressional years—after all, the GOP would've made sure to have a two-term presidency of Hillary Clinton be a repeat of 1995-2001 and what could've been 1993-1994 had the GOP Congress begun being in office in 1993.

"[A]ll Men Are Created Equal[ly]"? Or Are They Created Equitably?

By the way, if you want an example of a group who think that all should be equal:

The haredi press raised further concerns that many of the immigrants would refuse to undergo a conversion process or that the procedure would be conducted by institutions and courts which do not meet the strict standard, and that as a result their children will create mixed marriages later on.

Note "strict standard" and a dread of "mixed marriages". Also consider that Thomas Jefferson considered Blacks, e.g., to be "as incapable as children". So much for "equally":

1

:  in an equal or uniform manner :  evenly equally

>

2

:  to an equal degree equally

 by young and old>
Try "equitably" instead:

1
:  having or exhibiting equity :  dealing fairly and equally with all concernedequitable

 settlement of the dispute>
2
:  existing or valid in equity as distinguished from law equitable defense>
After all, the Haredim would have to treat Non-Haredi Jews as fellow Jews who were created b'tzelem Elohim v'm'Yisra'el; and Thomas Jefferson would have had to treat Blacks as fellow humans who were created b'tzelem Elohim. Since they wanted equality, though, they could make only those who fit their standards to be considered as their compatriots.

My Own Response To the SOTU Address of 2015

"Mr. President, with all due respect, I must sadly sum up your address as the following: promises with catches, at-maximum-half truths, and simply outright lies. I should also remind you that the Constitution states, 'He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union'. As I read that statement, I do not find it to mean, 'He shall at an annual interval give to the American people and his compatriots in the American government a self reaffirmation of his worldview and his Executive governance in light of the worldview.'"

A Favor That I Need From Howard County And Those Connected To It

As I've stated, I grew up in Columbia, Maryland—where the tragic murder-suicide at the mall happened (I didn't really talk about that before because I wanted to wait until time passed as much as possible and some normalcy was restored.). Once again, I am connected to my Diasporan hometown (though I hope that I may make aliyah in my lifetime). As such, I need a favor from fellow Columbians, and others in and connected to Howard County (Native Americans and Diasporans of all other peoples)—that is, I need you to get the word out about Maryland State Senator and Howard County Executive candidate Allan Kittleman.

As I discussed last night (and notice that I stated that as I discussed last night), President Obama's language sounds ignorant of the lesson that we read that Moshe (z"l) learned from Yitro (z"l) in Yitro (cf. esp. Shemot [Exodus] 18:13-26). On the other hand, the opposing idea of devolution and localization parallels Yitro's suggestions to Moshe.

Jews and Christians (including Jewish Christians like myself) will understand this if and as they read this week's Torah reading. Remember that Jews and Christians are to declare G-d's glory to the nations (cf. Yeshayahu 66:18-21), and part of that glory is devolution and localization. After all, what did G-d (B"H) command as the second-most important commandment to sum up Torah (cf. Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31)? "[Y]ou shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord." (Vayikra [Leviticus] 19:18b, NKJV) Either way, G-d commanded this through Yeshua—whether one believes in Jesus (Yeshua) simply as a great rebbe or a talmid l'talmud raba, or Adonai Mishichenu Himself!

Loving one's neighbor, therefore, is a mitzvah rabah, and it inherently excludes burdening one's self and others with forms of big government. As stated in Parashat Yitro:

13 And so it was, on the next day, that Moses sat to judge the people; and the people stood before Moses from morning until evening. 14 So when Moses’ father-in-law saw all that he did for the people, he said, “What is this thing that you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit, and all the people stand before you from morning until evening?”15 And Moses said to his father-in-law, “Because the people come to me to inquire of God. 16 When they have a difficulty, they come to me, and I judge between one and another; and I make known the statutes of God and His laws.”17 So Moses’ father-in-law said to him, “The thing that you do is not good. 18 Both you and these people who are with you will surely wear yourselves out. For this thing is too much for you; you are not able to perform it by yourself. 19 Listen now to my voice; I will give you counsel, and God will be with you: Stand before God for the people, so that you may bring the difficulties to God. 20 And you shall teach them the statutes and the laws, and show them the way in which they must walk and the work they must do. 21 Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. 22 And let them judge the people at all times. Then it will be thatevery great matter they shall bring to you, but every small matter they themselves shall judge. So it will be easier for you, for they will bear the burden with you. 23 If you do this thing, and God socommands you, then you will be able to endure, and all this people will also go to their place in peace.”24 So Moses heeded the voice of his father-in-law and did all that he had said. 25 And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people: rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. 26 So they judged the people at all times; the hard cases they brought to Moses, but they judged every small case themselves.

Nonetheless, as aforestated, President Obama's language sounds ignorant about this. Thus, President Obama—who swore that he'd "act on [his] own" if he would have to do so—makes himself sounds as though he is willing to unnecessarily burden himself and the American people. In contrast, the late Former President Ronald Reagan (z"l) took a lesson from Yitro and devolved and localized government.

So, what does any of this have to with the favor of which I asked fellow Columbians, and others in and connected to Howard County (Native Americans and Diasporans of all other peoples)? It has to do with that:

1. There are many Jewish and Christian (and Jewish Christian) voters in and connected to Howard County. For example, you might be a member of Congregation Beth Shalom (and if you are a member, you should already know that it's in Columbia); or you might be a friend of a congregant of Emmanuel Messianic Jewish Congregation (in Clarksville). On the other hand, your friend's friend might attend Christ Episcopal Church (in Columbia); or you yourself might attend Harvester Baptist Church (in the Howard County seat city, Ellicott City).
2. Jews and Christians (and Jewish Christians) are among the largest voting groups in any given election.
3. At least quite a few Jews and Christians (and Jewish Christians) would agree with the lesson that Moshe learned and that the late Former President Reagan took from Yitro. Also, what Former President Reagan stated about Hispanics is true for Jews: "They're Republicans; they just don't know it yet"—and a Massachusettsan Reform Jew (who is a counterpart to quite a few Jews in Howard County) can teach us that as well.
4. As far as I know, Senator and County Executive candidate Allan Kittleman agrees with the very-Jewish, very-Christian, and Reaganite policies of devolution and localization.
5. In contrast to Senator and County Executive candidate Allan Kittleman, President Obama (who is the current leader of the Democratic Party) believes in an-inherently unJewish, unChristian, and unReaganite policy of centralization and statism. Meanwhile, Senator Kittleman's rival candidate, County Councilwoman Courtney Watson, is part of President Obama's party—and the party line at the local, state, and federal levels is the line of centralization and statism.
6. Howard County must not give in to a party line and policy that goes against the Judeo-Christian lines and policies that have made Howard County a great county, and the United States a great county, over the past century and sixty-three years.

Therefore, I urge everyone who is connected to Howard County in any way, shape, or form to get the word out about  Howard County Councilwoman Watson's (and President Obama's) rival in the Howard County Executive election, Maryland State Senator and Reaganite Allan Kittleman.

Why Russian Jews And Jews Like Myself Are Perhaps Not Buriable In Israel

 Many of those Former Soviet nationals are Jews but are not considered as such by the Orthodox Pharisees--either because they're Karaites, Messianic Jews (Jewish Christians), or something else altogether; Patrilineal Jews or not Matrilineally or otherwise Jewish enough. I come from that very legacy--I am a Jewish Christian but can't even look to bury myself and reinter certain relatives in Israel because we were Ashkenazim Anusim and/or descendants thereof. Prime example: my great-granduncle Bernie--the only reason that he can't be reinterred in Israel is because his parents lived as Crypto Jews (Anusim) in Poland during the pogroms and America when their non-converted family kicked them off of the family farm. Otherwise, with no direct descendants or anyone else claiming to be his next of kin, who would object to me taking my Anusi great-granddad's brother to the land that my great-great-grandparents yearned for?

Repost: Constitutional and Biblical Scholarship: "Like the Bible..."

"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.

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.

For example and for comparison:

1. A Reform Jew may treat kashrut as no longer or even not ever really valid under modern Biblical scholarship's forms of original intent, original meaning, and pragmatism: "[Reform and Orthodox] differences in perspective can be seen in every aspect of life: how holy days and festivals are celebrated, how kashrut (the laws of keeping kosher) are kept, how the prayer service is organized and conducted, etc. But it is not accurate to generalize and say All Orthodox Jews do this...' or 'All Reform Jews do that...'"; and " For Reform, the Torah is the God-inspired attempt by Hebrews/Israelites/ Jews to understand their surroundings and their relationship with God. While it is a holy document, the Torah is rooted in the past, and we can even sometimes discern the circumstances under which certain sections were written down. Reform thus sees development in Judaism, not just through the biblical period but thereafter as well, so that we can continue the process of helping Judaism evolve by coming to our own understandings." ( Union For Reform Judaism)
2. In the same way that Reform Jews in modern Biblical scholarship  see kashrut and other apparently-flawed and for-the-time institutions; many (including the late Justice Thurgood Marshall) in Constitutional scholarship use original intent, original meaning, and pragmatism to see the Constitution as the framers' " attempt... to understand their surroundings and their relationship with God" and government; and thus believe about the Constitution as Reform Jews believe about the Bible (including the New Testament; although to be fair, Orthodox Jews like Shmuely Boteach and Dr. Amy-Jill Levine believe the following more about the New Testament than do Reform Jews)-- that is, " While it is a [sacred] document, [the document] is rooted in the past, and we can even...discern [and study] the circumstances under which certain sections were written down. [We] thus sees development in [the underlying philosophy behind the document], not just through the [document's] period but thereafter as well, so that we can continue the process of helping [the document and philosophy underlying it] evolve by coming to our own understandings." In other words, Constitutional stare decisis, polling jurisdictionism, and textualism within the context of pragmatism and the other schools of Constitutional scholarship are born out of the idea that the Constitution is  the framers' " attempt... to understand their surroundings and their relationship with God" and government.

In conclusion, treating the Constitution as a living document and treating it as though it were the Bible (and vice versa) causes real problems. Firstly, one can pervert the Constitution into the always-good document that (as the late Justice Marshall rightly pointed out) it wasn't. Secondly, one can read his or her own interpretations into the Constitution and, to begin with, suggest that it was ever even based on Judeo-Christian principles to begin with when it was based on three main perversions of Christianity-- chauvinistic WASP Supremacism, Deism, and Unitarianism. Thirdly, one can (so to speak) turn the clock back on how the Constitution has become by using original intent, original meaning, and textualism if he or she so wishes to use those three as the ways to interpret the Constitution. 

In further conclusion; one can basically hold the supposedly-Judeo-Christian Constitution as sacred as the Bible and treat it as "[l]ike the Bible" instead of like the chauvinistic, WASP Supremacist, Deist, and Unitarian document that it would continue to be lest people like Justice Marshall continue to treat it like Reform Jews treat the Bible (and like some Orthodox Jews treat the New Testament as a part of the Bible).

Constitutional and Biblical Scholarship: "Like the Bible..."

"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.

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.

For example and for comparison:

1. A Reform Jew may treat kashrut as no longer or even not ever really valid under modern Biblical scholarship's forms of original intent, original meaning, and pragmatism: "[Reform and Orthodox] differences in perspective can be seen in every aspect of life: how holy days and festivals are celebrated, how kashrut (the laws of keeping kosher) are kept, how the prayer service is organized and conducted, etc. But it is not accurate to generalize and say All Orthodox Jews do this...' or 'All Reform Jews do that...'"; and " For Reform, the Torah is the God-inspired attempt by Hebrews/Israelites/ Jews to understand their surroundings and their relationship with God. While it is a holy document, the Torah is rooted in the past, and we can even sometimes discern the circumstances under which certain sections were written down. Reform thus sees development in Judaism, not just through the biblical period but thereafter as well, so that we can continue the process of helping Judaism evolve by coming to our own understandings." ( Union For Reform Judaism)
2. In the same way that Reform Jews in modern Biblical scholarship  see kashrut and other apparently-flawed and for-the-time institutions; many (including the late Justice Thurgood Marshall) in Constitutional scholarship use original intent, original meaning, and pragmatism to see the Constitution as the framers' " attempt... to understand their surroundings and their relationship with God" and government; and thus believe about the Constitution as Reform Jews believe about the Bible (including the New Testament; although to be fair, Orthodox Jews like Shmuely Boteach and Dr. Amy-Jill Levine believe the following more about the New Testament than do Reform Jews)-- that is, " While it is a [sacred] document, [the document] is rooted in the past, and we can even...discern [and study] the circumstances under which certain sections were written down. [We] thus sees development in [the underlying philosophy behind the document], not just through the [document's] period but thereafter as well, so that we can continue the process of helping [the document and philosophy underlying it] evolve by coming to our own understandings." In other words, Constitutional stare decisis, polling jurisdictionism, and textualism within the context of pragmatism and the other schools of Constitutional scholarship are born out of the idea that the Constitution is  the framers' " attempt... to understand their surroundings and their relationship with God" and government.

In conclusion, treating the Constitution as a living document and treating it as though it were the Bible (and vice versa) causes real problems. Firstly, one can pervert the Constitution into the always-good document that (as the late Justice Marshall rightly pointed out) it wasn't. Secondly, one can read his or her own interpretations into the Constitution and, to begin with, suggest that it was ever even based on Judeo-Christian principles to begin with when it was based on three main perversions of Christianity-- chauvinistic WASP Supremacism, Deism, and Unitarianism. Thirdly, one can (so to speak) turn the clock back on how the Constitution has become by using original intent, original meaning, and textualism if he or she so wishes to use those three as the ways to interpret the Constitution. 

In further conclusion; one can basically hold the supposedly-Judeo-Christian Constitution as sacred as the Bible and treat it as "[l]ike the Bible" instead of like the chauvinistic, WASP Supremacist, Deist, and Unitarian document that it would continue to be lest people like Justice Marshall continue to treat it like Reform Jews treat the Bible (and like some Orthodox Jews treat the New Testament as a part of the Bible).