heres what it boils down to. im not sure which interview it was but i remember her using the term ambivalent to describe her feelings toward judaism. the term ambivalent describes a condition where a person feels strongly both ways about an issue. the way i see it shes someone who suffered, became terribly disenfranchised, and felt a strong need to lash out, which she did in the form of her book.
as far as she is concerned right now she never wants to have anything to do with judaism again, but that term ambivalent is telling–it means that she has feelings either way. therefore i conclude that rather than trying to vilify her, we should be trying to show her the beauty that judaism has to offer–the beauty she never saw as a child.
i cant even blame her for writing the book; why should she not write a book being negative about judaism if she never experienced anything positive in judaism?
she never once mentioned experiencing a shabbos…not ONCE! shabbos is one of the most beautiful parts of judaism and she only ever mentioned it to refer to the day of the week. she grew up in a system–satmar in williamsburg. systems fail. in her case it failed wherever and whenever possible. what do you expect from someone like that? positive feedback? how?!
we all know that there IS beauty in judaism; we’ve all experienced it. so why should we keep it all to ourselves? why not share it with this person who unfortunately had difficult life?