Montra, I understand that a stateless and classless society is impossible and ridiculous (here, we agree), however, I have yet to meet a single professor who adheres to the belief that it is possible and should be achieved. Really, I have not met one professor who believes that. Here is the reality Montra, the people who you have read, hear on the radio, and see on TV who demonize professors have all been fed the same nonsense. Their problem with professors is not that they are Marxist. They are not, if you want proof, go to iTunes U and listen in to their many free lectures at Yale, Oxford, and other Ivy League institutions; they do not teach that Marxism is true. Certainly, there are, I can imagine, some professors who are; but more often than not it is rare to find professors who buy into Marx's writings entirely. There are more liberal professors, certainly, but that is quite a ways away from Marxism. No, their problem with professors is that they disagree with them and, for conservatives, this is dangerous. Many conservatives really don't know how to take criticism without immediately labeling the dissenter as an enemy. Professors also teach "heretical" ideas because they tend to use evidence much more than preachers. Sorry, that's the truth. How often do you see preachers cite historical works during their sermons? The answer is obvious: never. There is a reason for that, it is because they either have went to seminary and know there are problems with the Bible or they are preaching using emotion. You surely cannot have noticed the justification for believing in the Bible, because the Bible says it is true? That is one of the most basic logical fallacies, you cannot assume the truthfulness or accuracy of a source just because that source claims it is true. Even then, where in the Bible does the Bible say it is true? These are the types of questions that preachers purposefully avoid, even if they know there is much debate over them. Professors, on the other, aren't bound by their job to say one thing or the other. They are free to form their own opinion based on the evidence; there is no such thing are "heresy" in academics aside from cheating, plagiarizing, or not using evidence. As a result, some conservatives see all of academics as wrong, though they have no evidence of it, and label it "Marxist" or "left-wing" because they have no other way to demonize it. In fact, academics is not "leftist", it is in favor of intellectual freedom and, oftentimes, the evidence doesn't line up with crazy claims drummed up by the far-right nor with the absurdities of fundamentalist Christianity which claims that every detail in the Bible is 100% accurate. And you know what? For most Biblical scholars that is not a shock, very few Biblical scholars take up Biblical inerrancy (the idea that the Bible is 100% accurate) because it cannot withstand the evidence. Reality isn't so simple. The Bible isn't entirely inaccurate, but it isn't accurate all the time either. It is a complex picture. Academics offers you a way to investigate the world in the only way that makes sense; through examining the evidence. Evidence is all we have in this world. The only reason, in fact, that you have your Bible is because academics put it together using manuscript evidence that has been preserved from hundreds of years ago in libraries across the world. Yes, academic libraries. The only reason you have an accurate Bible, or any Bible at all, is because of the very institution which you openly deride. Thank scholars for the Bible you hold in your hands, because you owe them for it. You see, without evidence, we can know nothing about the world. So the next time you think about saying that academics is "leftist" or "Marxist" remember that.
Really? Bill Gates is Maxist? Mr Facebook? Mr Oracle DB? Mr(s) Google? All the leading tech people are Marxists? Think! Please!
Looking back on my own college experience, all my professors were left leaning and hostile to religion. Perhaps it was just a coincidence over my 5 years in college. I was usually the only vocal one who proported to be practicing a faith of some kind, and was then selected as a target. All I can say is that at first it caught me off gaurd. Here I was just a kid being assaulted on a regular basis because of my faith in class. At first, I backed down to many of their arguements, but after soul searching and some fact finding I got better at debating. I later came to an important conclusion. Just because you lose a debate does not mean you are wrong, it only means you are ill equiped to win a debate. In fact, I can think of other examples to this end. I guess it hit me one day that it seemed odd that many of my professors were so preoccupied with my faith. It almost was as if they were trying to convince themselves more than myself. As for the Bible and academia, I think you will find that the Bible is the only religious text that started a scientific discipline, specifically Biblical Archeaology. It was deemed reliable enough to use to help go find digs. BTW: the Bible does not claim to be inarrant, does it?
I don't think any credible "progressive" would claim that Marx was inerrant. They would rather build upon the collectivist ideology and take and reject what they like as it "evolves" into something they like. I would also say that not everyone who goes through the system has been swayed, but from what I have witnessed most are.
I am new to this forum so I will tread lightly for now. I am struck by the content of this forum and the comfort people have expressing their opinions as facts when their opinions are based on a ridiculous level of ignorance. But I want to answer the original posters question as I think I know. Why are so many more Jews atheist or agnostic. The simple answer is because they can be and still claim the mantle of Judaism. Judaism is not just a religion as others have said, but what is more important, one can claim the rituals, traditions, songs, and even prayers of Judaism as part of their cultural make up and still not believe in God. In fact there is a Jewish Humanistic Society that does all manner of rituals considered religious by outside observers and still do not include God. When the person listed from wikipedia the list of movements of Judaism that one was one of the new movements, also Jewish Renewal which is a meditative spirituality based movement or sub=movement. But Judaism was NEVER monolithic. Let me repeat that, NEVER. In the time the Jesus was born the Temple stood at the center of Jewish life and there were 4 major movements of Judaism. Pharisees, Sadducee, Essenes, and Zealot. As well as the Samaritans which was a different expression of Judaism that developed out of a political difference (inside baseball). Judaism always was a way to honor God through the commandments, the Mitzvot. However those commandments separated the Jews from their neighbors. Post-enlightenment Jews sought to balance the Biblical principles that are in the Torah with the modern world and Reform and later Conservative Judaism developed. Mordecai Kaplan took it further with Reconstructionist Judaism. When the commandments took on different meaning the role of God changed for many. Interesting fact the vast majority of Jews in Israel are not religious at all but my guess is that they would say there is a God even if they don't believe in one.
It's amazing how so many Christians, even after years of hounding Jews in anti-Semitic crusades and mobs, continue to see them as an "inferior" religion in many cases. Heck, anti-Semitism originated partly from Jews being depicted as Christ-killers and this was a large part of the myths about the myth of blood rituals. Interesting how the religion of love can inspire such hatred.
