Drudge, the Christmas War, and Judi(th Regan)ism
What I try to do in this space is provide informed insight — be it amusing or serious — on topics germane to Matt Drudge or Internet journalism that the average media consumer does not possess. Not that I’m infallible in my expertise by any means, but that I have a specific skill set that can sometimes generate meaningful dialogue that hasn’t already been hackneyed on the Web. Because I’ve worked in advertising, I understand how media is purchased and can explain how unlikely Matt Drudge is to have or exercise control over his site’s pop-up ads. From my PR work, I can discuss how he is media-savvy in some ways and self-defeating in others. And because I took the time to research his bio and work logistics, I usually have a thing or two to say about nearly any media decision he makes.
I’ve concluded many things. That he’s overly excitable but not histrionic. That he likes to make mischief but isn’t interested in launching a smear campaign or expending energy on a single political cause.
Like the “War on Christmas” controversy, the subject of Matt Drudge is divisive. Some readers will never change their minds about him come hell or high water. They will view any Drudge headline or news story concerning Matt himself through their own politically tinged lens. But I do have facts that will shed light on both topics — info that doesn’t pop out on a cursory Google search. So irrespective of my own opinions on politics, religion, or what Matt Drudge, should or shouldn’t be, let me correct some misunderstandings that generated comments in last week’s entry.
From the AP reports linked on the Drudge Report, it is unclear who really shares blame for what in the Seatac Airport menorah controversy. They offer a very specific account of the port authority’s actions but only a vague rendering of what Rabbi Bogomilsky said or did, when, and why. The only “paper trail” I found of Bogomilsky submitting a draft of a lawsuit was reported on December 18 and 19, after the radio show and my posted commentary thereon. Yet Drudge and others had formed stong opinions on his intentions (to see his faith noticeably represented? To neutralize Christmas?) and the merit of his argument and the haste of his actions without knowing for certain what they were.
The rabbi’s perceived behavior doesn’t seem in line with the highly mission-centered, media-focused outreach organization he represents. While I don’t share Chabad’s political leanings or strain of Orthodoxy, it’s difficult to conveive of any Chabad-Lubavitcher showing his backside to an outsider as it appears on the surface…even in a private conversation. Their modus operandi is forging civic relationships and exposing unaffiliated Jews to traditional Judaism in a nonthreatening way — a tall order at best, particularly in December when Jewish-Christian relations can be the most awkward. Chabad arranges public menorah lightings in cities all over the country without any apparent strife with authorities. It’s not about one individual rabbi’s ”jihad”. He’s replicating a model that his colleagues do successfully everywhere. Even if he didn’t happen to be the most effective rabbi with the most educated heart, he couldn’t be that stupid.
News consumers form opinions on reports without thoroughly reading or understanding what they have read. Too often, what they accept as informed fact is sloppy seconds from radio hosts and media pundits without reading the original stories firsthand. Don’t think so? Scour letters to the editor and blog commentaries on the first week of each April. Also research Internet rumors and lampoon articles. Did Tommy Hilfiger really tell Oprah on-air that he designed clothes for white people? Did Joe Lieberman really announce he’d refuse to vacate his office even if he weren’t re-elected? Did Dollar General Corporation state its intention to purchase naming rights to a popular nature reserve and rechristen it Dollar General Lake? Was the Drudge Report bought out by MSNBC? Does Matt have a publicist named April Fools?
It’s incorrect that, unlike Christmas trees, menorahs are viewewd exclusively as religious symbols. Right or wrong, a hanukkiah carries strong cultural connotation for many secular or nonobservant Jews. Not that everyone’s happy about that. Many Jews of various levels of religious observance are not on board with Chabad’s or other Jews’ idea of menorahs on public property. Arguments range from the commercialization of a religious holiday, First Amendment issues, the false equivalence between Hanukkah and Christmas, and inflating the eight days’ significance. ( Hanukkah’s a minor holiday to begin with, primarily associated with home rituals. Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, Shemini Atzeret, Simchat Torah, Passover and Shavuot dwarf its importance in the scheme even further.)
Drudge tends to get carried away with the gestalt of social party poopers (eg. principals banning sugar in schools and other favorite kvetches). I feel that he passed the opportunity to think critically about something that should be second nature to him. He grew up in both a family and a metropolitan area of “Just Jewish” influences where socioreligious events are watered down to dreidels, Hanukkah presents, and latkes — just like Santa, Frosty and Rudolph tend to maneuver Jesus out of his prime placement spot.
News stories should raise questions, not affirm pat answers. When I read the Seatac story, I had a barrage of questions. How did this happen? How did the communication reach this nadir? How did the personalities of the players involved affect the outcome? Who paid for those 14 Christmas trees? Was the rabbi in dialogue with only one authority or two? Why did the powers that be think it would be easier to erect, dismantle, and re-mantle over a dozen trees (an ACTUAL problem) than to erect the menorah and risk a barrage of similar requests (a THEORETICAL problem)? And who leaked this story to the press?
But to Matt, there was already an answer: “Christmas and everything fun/innocent/good/stabilizing is under attack.”
I don’t hold Drudge to a politically or religiousl correct standard of what a Jewish person should be. If I did, I’d find fault on his on-air and online defense of Judith Regan, who was accused this week of anti-Semitic remarks. I understand from the context of hsi statements that there’s a frightful amount of bad blood between her and Rupert Murdoch’s minions. She should be given the benefit of the doubt until more information is known. Would that it were the case for Matt’s own public opinion! And would that it were the case for public opinion toward Bogomilsky!
What I do expect of Matt Drudge is to be cognizant of nuances. I expect him to know that Menorahgate is not a cut-and-dried issue. I expect him, a First Amendment and civil libertarian, to at least understand where all these apparent anti-Christmas boogeymen are coming from. I expect him to realize that, while he understands what he chooses not to agree with, he is perpetuating one misunderstanding he could clear up, or at least not fuel:
There is no united or agenda-driven war on Christmas. There may be a threat to the social order and Christmas culture that you value. It is arguable that some lawsuits may go to o far, but there is no conscious ambush on the holiday itself. Even among the Jewish community, there is a diversity of opinion of whether addressing a church/state violation is worth the ensuing drama, effort, misunderstanding, and ill will. A rabbi whom I interviewed for a college paper on the subject summed it up like this: “Even if the law is clearly being broken, it’s often like leaving a store realizing the cashier shortchanged you. Probably neither of us will go back for a nickel. We’ll both go back for a hundred dollars. That doesn’t make it a non-issue. But we have different limits.”
Likewise, Matt Drudge is not waging an agenda-driven war on anything or anybody. There is no campaign. There is no intrigue. There is no plot. So if you want to honor the spirit of the Christmas message of “peace on earth, good will toward men”, STOP CREATING IMAGINARY CONQUISTADORS!
Happy holidays! Your Christmas is safe with me.
by RegoPark - 2:15 am
December 24th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
“There is no united or agenda-driven war on Christmas”
Well that is one man, or woman’s opinion.
Have you seen the pounds of paperwork and articles flying off of Mr. Drudge’s advertised Conservsative website, (deleted), which speak to the contrary?
There is INDEED a very pointed, persistent, and voracious attack against everything that is the essence of Christmas, including the words, symbols, sentiments, the faithful, and, indeed, Christ Himself..
Some mad man once pushed the idea of telling a lie enough -in print- so that people with find it to be Truth. But, with all due respect to this site’s author, one person’s opine does not make Truth, nor does it have any basis in speaking for the experience of hundreds of thousands of devoted Christians, the world over! Not suggesting you are “mad”, but in error.
Unless you consider yourself a true Evangeligal Christian, or an honestly sympathetic person of any faith, (As Mr. Drudge is..) how can you personally think that just because the authors at “DrudgeBlog” have all the know on these things, simply because it has Matt Drudge’s name on it and it is, publically, in print?
As real, observant, long time Christians, who have weathered, over the years, more than our fair share of -true-bigotry from those of nonfaith, I can honestly share that your comment is -sorry-rather weightless and untrue..Although you may be doing otherwise good and valuable things here, I believe you are trying to share an angle which is your, and not many who are seeing the truth here, viewpoint alone.
I believe Mr. Drudge is being honest and fair. I believe he has seen more and heard more to be in the know, if simply by virtue of the fact that, on this issue, he is telling the truth.
I am glad someone is covering the important work of Mr. Drudge.
I am saddened that, here for today, his name is being used by such, perhaps well-meaning people, to put forth an angle on Christmas and the Christian’s experience which is completely untrue.
If anything, Mr. Drudge is doing himself, society, and others, an amazing service by broadcasting these trueths regarding this holy day. In doing this, he, by far, lifts up and defends every other Conservative faith which expresses itself in wholesome, Biblical values, and true good-will to men.
In all modesty, when it comes to Christmas, maybe you should be polling the worldwide Christian populations. I mean, doesnt it stand to reason that we ought to know?
We respect true faiths, regardless.
But, the lies of political correctness are death..
Please check these out, thouroughly, sometime, and there are many others, for more of the real story..
(links deleted)
Do a search on “Christmas” or “holiday”..
These folks are al en league..those who pump the Christmas ‘blues’..(Not that they can, anyway..)These folks, and the networks, who place “Carrie” reruns, and the like, on midnight movies on Christmas Eve..Can’t see how one can’t see that..
In any case, Merry Christmas, Happy holydays..
December 24th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
#1: The point of this site is to cover Drudge-related topics. It’s not about my or Lance’s personal political opinions or religious beliefs. We have other blogs on which to air those. I state facts and research-based opinion. Most readers of this page are already well-aware of both sides — and online coverage — of the “War on Christmas” issue. We don’t need to rehash it here.
#2: There’s a big difference between religious non-Christians believing that publicly sponsored religious displays is illegal or unfair, and commercial theaters offering Carrie reruns.
#3: How do you know that Matt Drudge is a person of faith, or that he shares yours? I’ve discussed this before and won’t go into it again right now, but maybe you should question some of the assumptions you’ve made about him. If you learned that he was not a conservative Christian, would you still support him? Are you open to points of view he airs on his show and his site that do not jive with yours? Is the controversial reporting style he’s known for really in line with your values? I’m not trying to challenge your beliefs or worldview. Just think critically when you read or listen to Drudge. If you wouldn’t tolerate or condone something from a secular liberal, you shouldn’t gloss over it because you think he’s “on your side”.
#4: I made it clear from the beginning of this post that I don’t consider myself entirely infallible. But neither are you.
#5: Matt Drudge has many positive qualities, but on the radio show he’s basically just offering a combination of news he’s reporting on the site and his own from-the-hip opinions. Don’t put too much stock in any radio host’s opinions, whether you agree with thim or not.
Finally, please understand and respect that this is not the place to gratuitously plug other websites unless they directly relate to Drudge issues. Visitors to the Drudge Report can check out the link for themselves.
December 25th, 2006 at 1:20 am
” #1: The point of this site is to cover Drudge-related topics. It’s not about my or Lance’s personal political opinions or religious beliefs. We have other blogs on which to air those. I state facts and research-based opinion. Most readers of this page are already well-aware of both sides — and online coverage — of the “War on Christmas” issue. We don’t need to rehash it here.”
I’m sure. But your post ended with your emphatically telling your readers that a war on Christmas is not so and hogwash.
These were your opinions. Not facts. I am not sure of your research on that topic. It appeared that you were urging your readers to agree with you in your inability to find such claims as a war on Chrtistmas true..
It was not a personal attack. Simply a reply out of concern.
“#2: There’s a big difference between religious non-Christians believing that publicly sponsored religious displays is illegal or unfair, and commercial theaters offering Carrie reruns.”
Actually, you may have misunderstood my allusion and the context. I was suggesting that a war on Christmas is backed by the same people, and kinds of people, who premit gorey movies as fine far on a Holiday’s eve. “carrie” was aired on New York’s channel 9 this past Saturday/Sunday evening..Not the least bit respectful to the spirit of the season, we’d say.
“#3: How do you know that Matt Drudge is a person of faith, or that he shares yours? I’ve discussed this before and won’t go into it again right now, but maybe you should question some of the assumptions you’ve made about him.”
I don’t have any “assumptions” about Mr. Drudge, even if I did know him, which I don’t. I know he made an effort to cover the stories related to this topic because they were of importance to him.
I belive you said that yourself above, and questioned him doing that. I see no “assumptions” there..
“If you learned that he was not a conservative Christian, would you still support him?”
I never thought he was..I don’t think I agree with him on all things, I’m not sure.
“Are you open to points of view he airs on his show and his site that do not jive with yours?”
I really can’t say. Maybe some, not, maybe others..
“Is the controversial reporting style he’s known for really in line with your values?”
I haven’t listened to him that long, so I can’t tell you. Why do you ask?
“I’m not trying to challenge your beliefs or worldview.”
You’re not? LOL
“Just think critically when you read or listen to Drudge.”
I’d like to think I do..
Have we met? :-/
“If you wouldn’t tolerate or condone something from a secular liberal, you shouldn’t gloss over it because you think he’s “on your side”.”
I don’t think my being glad he agreed with me on this point suggests any such thing. Except that I am glad he did.
“#4: I made it clear from the beginning of this post that I don’t consider myself entirely infallible. But neither are you.”
Well, I really don’t know you. I never said I was “infallible”..Where is this going? :^/
“#5: Matt Drudge has many positive qualities, but on the radio show he’s basically just offering a combination of news he’s reporting on the site and his own from-the-hip opinions. Don’t put too much stock in any radio host’s opinions, whether you agree with thim or not.”
That’s thoughtful of you to take all the time to say that. but, actually, I don’t..
Merry Christmas to you too
and Happy holydays
Finally, please understand and respect that this is not the place to gratuitously plug other websites unless they directly relate to Drudge issues. Visitors to the Drudge Report can check out the link for themselves.
December 25th, 2006 at 1:59 am
And, besides, I couldnt, and wouldnt come to those amazing high conclusions about Mr. Drudge that you thought I might, if simply by virtue of the fact that they fly against my faith.
Our God is said to be God “no respecter of persons”. This means that His dealings with a man are not based on outward appearance, position, rank, wealth or nationality, in gthe sense of fearing man or conferring special favor on them.. Which is not to say we don’t agree with certain people or their faith, background or viewpoints, just that we don’t make a deity of man.
And so, though I see Mr. Drudge as quite human and fallible himself, like you, me, and all the rest, I didn’t think my happiness about his agreeing with our view made him in agreement with all we believe, or value or hold dear..
In any case, I, still, think it took courage and honesty and decency on his part to keep posting these articles, because they, for the Christian, are quite true.
The Bishops, and ArchBishops have captured our experience. And this is a sad revelation, that, for those of our faith, this is an experience the whole world through.
December 25th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
***They offer a very specific account of the port authority’s actions but only a vague rendering of what Rabbi Bogomilsky said or did, when, and why. The only “paper trail” I found of Bogomilsky submitting a draft of a lawsuit was reported on December 18 and 19, after the radio show and my posted commentary thereon. Yet Drudge and others had formed stong opinions on his intentions (to see his faith noticeably represented? To neutralize Christmas?) and the merit of his argument and the haste of his actions without knowing for certain what they were.***
I’m the one you’re referencing who thought the rabbi wanted the menorah displayed “to see his faith noticeably represented”. I don’t know that I would characterize it as a “strong opinion”–it was more of an assumption really. I thought public displays of their religion was one of the characteristics of Chabad-Lubavitch. As I understand it (and forgive me if I express this crudely), it’s their way of trying to raise awareness of Judaism among other Jews and inspire a sense of pride in Jews for their Jewish identity.
I also disagree that the descriptions of the port authority’s actions were specific while the descriptions of Bogomilsky’s actions were vague. The stories basically said that the rabbi asked them to put up a menorah and said that if they didn’t do so within two days that he would file suit. (I seem to recall some stories also mentioned that he offered to provide them a suitable menorah.) The stories also said basically that the port authority decided to take down all the trees rather than risk a lawsuit. All the stories I read also clearly stated that Bogomilsky had not asked them to take the trees down and had not wanted them to take the trees down–all he had wanted was for them to put a menorah up. Now, I agree the stories didn’t really say a lot about Bogomilsky’s side, but I don’t see them saying that much if any more about the port authority’s side.
I don’t believe there is a war on Christmas or a war on Christian symbol’s during Christmas. Even if there were, I doubt I would care, and I’m certain I would survive. If next December a majority of public places were festooned with Kwanzaa decorations I would not be offended or disturbed.
Generally, I would support people of other faiths and other traditions having their own particular holiday symbols displayed. But in this case, I still think it was jerky–to say nothing of stupid–for the rabbi to threaten a lawsuit (and I think it’s been fairly established that he did threaten to sue them). It was rude, it was overbearing, and I would say the same thing if Christians had threatened to sue unless the port authority put up a nativity scene. Lawsuits do not engender good will, and I really think the threat of lawsuits is thrown around far too casually in our society.
Bogomilsky’s desires and intentions might very well have been good, but, the fact remains, he threatened to sue them. It was his choice to do so; no one forced him. After he threatened that lawsuit, he had no control over how other people would respond. So, I don’t see why he or anyone else can cry foul when the port authority decided to remove the trees. Bogomilsky’s strategy could have worked–certainly, the threat of a lawsuit has achieved desired results in many other unrelated situations–but, in this case, it seems to have blown up in his face. Does that mean his intentions were wrong? No. Does that mean he’s a bad person? No. But I can’t really sympathize with him in this situation. It seems to me, he played with fire and burned himself.
And, going back to your original blog entry, I still somewhat disagree with your criticism of Drudge’s reaction. I was listening to his radio show when he commented on this Sea-Tac/Bogomilsky story, and at the time I did think he was overreacting to some degree–to me, the story didn’t seem to warrant the level of emotion he was responding to it with. However, I don’t think anything he said was so outrageous that it deserved the criticism you gave him: “What fills me with consternation is Drudge’s ramblings last night that the rabbi was hurting Jewish-Christian relations and that someone ’should sue him for threatening to sue the airport’. Bubbeleh, I think you are hurting interfaith relations when you report and comment on a ‘December dilemma’ story you don’t understand. Just because you flunked out of Hebrew school doesn’t mean you have to dumb down your limited knowledge for the rest of us. And another thing: understand your own damn religion and community before you tear down its esteem to all of middle America.”
Those words seem really harsh to me. He said something you disagree with, and you responded by attacking a part of his identity, as if his opinion is invalid because he’s not an observant Jews. Like it or not, he *is* Jewish, and, as importantly, he seems to consider himself Jewish. His opinions and reactions as a Jew are as worthy of consideration as yours are if only because (1) he is Jewish and (2) he’s not that uncommon of a Jew but rather is one of, what I understand is, a sizable group of ethnically Jewish people who don’t really practice the religion or the customs that much.
Actually, if I understand their mission properly, Jews like Drudge are the very people Chabad-Lubavitch is trying to reach out to. If that is the case, then I would consider his reaction deserving of a lot of consideration.
Finally, as should be fairly obvious, I’m not Jewish. I’m sort of a quasi-Christian. I do try to educate myself and keep informed, but if I’ve said anything offensive or grossly misinformed about Jewish culture, I’m sorry; it was not my intention to offend.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:49 am
Pamela: I said that there was not a united front on Christmas, as it related to the points I discussed in the preceding paragraphs – the Bogomilsky controversy and fine points on many Jewish groups’ position on public Christmas/Hanukkah displays. I don’t claim expert knowledge on the broader question on whether the essence or spirit of Christmas or Christ is under deliberate attack from parties unconnected with them. It’s certainly an interesting topic I’d be happy to discuss SOME OTHER TIME, SOME OTHER PLACE and stick to Drudge-specific topics here.
As the graduate of a Christian college, who majored in philosophy (taught by exclusively Christian professors), I can assure you and other readers that challenging another person’s arguments or logical reasoning does not degrade or conflict with religious values. I am sorry if you feel your worldview is being unjustly attacked. I have to say that your dismissal of an alternative point of view as “hogwash” does not contribute to constructive dialogue. Nor am I urging readers to agree with me, because what purpose would a comment box of praises from dittoheads serve?
You referred to “an honestly sympathetic person of any faith, (As Mr. Drudge is..)” In my mind, this is an assumption. It might be the case, but you don’t know it.
Many people, from different political camps and religious persuasions, find issue with various aspects of Drudge’s reporting style: that he recklessly posts potentially damaging gossip without verifying sources. (Most notably, he erroneously reported that Sidney Blumenthal had a history of spousal abuse, when in fact there is no record of it.) He also posts private information and what can be construed as personal attack. You may want to research and evaluate this evidence, make up your own mind about its and Drudge’s accuracy, decide whether this man is the supporter of conservative Christian values that too many people assume he is. Maybe he is and maybe it isn’t, but at least know the facts and whether you can reconcile them.
Talk radio is opinion, not “truth” or public service. What you and I express is opinion, not truth. As cogent as anyone’s remarks are on this space or any other, they can never be more than one person’s opinion, and those opinions can never be completely objective. Drudge’s radio show is an extension of his brand. It can be fun and entertaining, and sometimes listeners learn of breaking news firsthand. But your references to him as “speaking the Truth” solidifies my concern that he is unwittingly doing harm. There is no truth or promotion of goodwill in lumping a church/state Christmas controversy with what you and many other listeners interpret in very black/white terms (truth/lies, faith/nonfaith) as a “ very pointed, persistent, and voracious attack against everything that is the essence of Christmas… indeed, Christ Himself.” Are members of the Jewish community who object to public Christmas part of this cabal? Drudge and I, if nothing else, at least have the background knowledge to know the answer to be “no”. At least “no” in the sense that Bogomilsky is not acting in an effort to neutralize or destroy the essence of Christmas.
It is a COMPLEX issue, and Drudge’s off-the-cuff ramblings oversimplify it to people who don’t understand that. People for whom this is a hot topic that pushes puttons. Bogomilsky’s debacle has nothing to do with the Christian’s experience – although he being a Hasidic Jew, I think you’ll agree that he probably knows a thing or two about religious bigotry himself.
You might notice that I haven’t even shared where exactly I stand on this issue. It’s irrelevant where I am on the continuum between allowing public Christmas displays unconditionally vs. not permitting them at all. I use this space to discuss Matt Drudge’s actions and his work for which he is responsible and examine them in light of his background. Of COURSE it is only my viewpoint! My co-blogger and I are not Matt Drudge’s representatives. I don’t invoke his name to legitimize or sanction my personal opinion, but I do express it, appropriately, on a site that states on our home page that we are not affiliated with him in any way. (Despite that measure, I believe that fact is obvious.)
If I really found “truth” in lies printed often enough – referring to your original posting – I wouldn’t have questioned long “substantiated” rumors about Drudge that I tried to debunk back in November 2005.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:54 am
Jessica: I’m not lumping your opinion together with the strong opinions of many Drudge “consumers”. I do want to clear up many common misconceptions that non-Jews couldn’t be reasonably expected to know…and some things Matt Drudge does that makes me feel he was being irresponsible.
I do not attack Drudge’s identity, choices, or a background over which he had no direct control. I criticize his lack of forethought.
If you spoke on a radio broadcast in a foreign country where most citizens didn’t understand American customs or politics you’d probably use careful judgment in criticizing the U.S. Especially if the nation were impacted negatively by U.S. foreign policy. Does it mean that you’d mince your words to the point of becoming a propaganda head? Of course not. But you’d likely try to make an effort of explaining your views in a proper context, or at least not make flip, flamboyant asides that listeners would misconstrue. Quite possibly, you wouldn’t go there. Especially if you knew you weren’t particularly well-read on a topic at hand.
When high-profile Jews like Michael Medved dissent from the vocal majority of American Jews on an issue like defending Passion of the Christ, I respect him and his opinion. He takes the differing paradigms of Jewish and Christian worldviews into consideration, and he puts thought into what he says. Jews who advocate Palestinian rights are often unfairly attacked by being naïve or traitorous because they happen to disagree with Israeli politics. The most dedicated Israel lover I know is named on a site called the “SHIT List (Self-Hating and Israel-Threatening”). Unlike, I’m afraid, too many members of the Jewish community, I do my best to see both sides of a hot-button issue. Matt, unfortunately, sometimes shoots his mouth off on things he doesn’t take the time to fully understand or remember. He has stated that he usually reads only the first and last paragraph or two of a story.
Beyond basic curiosity, it doesn’t interest me whether he is observant at all, his religious affiliation or cultural identity (he basically calls himself a “New Age Jew”, by the way, has meditated since he was five, and reads both Jesus and Krishnamurti.) In fact, with his loose cannon, I kind of hope he DOESN’T become “frum”. With all the nasty stuff Dr. Laura spouted out during her Orthodox period (the statement that Reform Jews weren’t really Jewish, which isn’t exactly supported by most of the Orthodox community), I’d worry a little that Matt’s foot would end up in their mouth. Being a religious Jew, Christian, or Muslim doesn’t necessarily mean you have a fully integrated sense of that faith’s values.
You are correct in that the vast majority of American Jews are like Matt Drudge: unaffiliated religiously and with varying degrees of familiarity with history and religious custom. Although it is notable that most of them are much more politically liberal than he. Those who observe traditional Jewish law are in a VERY small minority. If nothing else, Matt has the background to understand, if not agree with, Bogomilsky’s position. While different Jews would vary on the degree to which they cared or the matter was worth pursuing, and for different reasons, I would say most would disagree with a publicly funded entity erecting 14 Christmas trees and rejecting a Jewish group’s request to erect a menorah they provided. And definitely, Matt knows that their position has nothing to do with slasher movies debuting on December 25! Do I think Drudge is “dumbing down” a complex politico-religious issue? Yes.
All of your points are valid, and I don’t necessarily disagree with them. Whomever erred here and to whatever degree, Chabad and the Jewish community learned another media lesson. I’m just really troubled that the answer to what happened here isn’t very clear-cut. In any case, it was not clear AT THE TIME OF THE RADIO BROADCAST when or whether the lawsuit was threatened. It was unclear in the AP stories Drudge chose to link to, and, again, I couldn’t find more specific reports of the rabbi’s actions dated before then. For me, it’s a matter of principle.
December 27th, 2006 at 12:18 am
Thanks for the response, Rego. I understand where you’re coming from much more fully now.
***If you spoke on a radio broadcast in a foreign country where most citizens didn’t understand American customs or politics you’d probably use careful judgment in criticizing the U.S. Especially if the nation were impacted negatively by U.S. foreign policy. Does it mean that you’d mince your words to the point of becoming a propaganda head? Of course not. But you’d likely try to make an effort of explaining your views in a proper context, or at least not make flip, flamboyant asides that listeners would misconstrue. Quite possibly, you wouldn’t go there. Especially if you knew you weren’t particularly well-read on a topic at hand.***
That would be me, but I suspect I think about issues a little longer than Matt does (which is actually one of the things I find so entertaining about him). I understand what you’re saying, though.
December 27th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Jessica, I think you’re VERY well-read on topics you choose to comment on. (Of course, there are a few things helpful to know that the average news consumer couldn’t possibly be expected to know.) And whatever level of “Jewish literacy” or educational background Matt has, it’s nothing to be ashamed or necessarily proud of. I just think he needs to use his noggin more sometimes when he spouts off on certain things. He has, of course, an interesting informed opinion on many other things…he just didn’t show much at this particular incident.