Uncategorized
The ‘Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret’ movie is a dated view of intermarriage
(JTA) — After watching “Are You There, God? It’s Me, Margaret” with one of my grandchildren, I’m very concerned that the thousands of tweens and teens who watch the movie will accept, as true, its very negative message about religion in general, and interfaith marriage in particular.
The movie is based on a book Judy Blume wrote in 1970, a long time ago. That date does flash on the screen when the movie begins, but it’s easy to forget that you’re watching a story based on things as they were over 50 years ago. The movie’s treatment of puberty, pre-teens kissing and mean girls ages well, although I’m no expert on those issues.
But the ways people experience interfaith marriage and religion today are very different.
The most dramatic part of the story is how Margaret’s Christian mother’s parents cut off contact with her when she married Margaret’s Jewish father — and had no contact with their granddaughter for 12 years.
It’s true that even today some non-Orthodox Jews react very harshly if their children fall in love with someone who is not Jewish. That definitely happened more in the 1970s, when there was not yet much interfaith marriage and the taboo against it was still high. My mother’s father literally sat shiva when a first cousin of mine intermarried in the 1960s.
When I married in 1974, my parents were unhappy that my wife was Christian, and while my wife’s parents never said anything, we learned much later that her father was unhappy that I was Jewish.
But they all put love of their family over those preferences, and they all had very loving relationships with our Jewish children.
Both of our children married partners from different faith backgrounds; I am pretty sure that our Christian machatunim (their spouses’ parents) were as delighted with these marriage choices as we were. Our grandchildren are adored by their two Jewish grandparents and two from different faith backgrounds.
I am afraid that the tweens and teens who watch the movie will not understand that its depiction of parents cutting off contact with their children for marrying someone from a different religion has fading relevance in our world today. As far back as 2000, an American Jewish Committee study found that 56% of American Jews did not oppose interfaith marriage and 80% said it was inevitable in an open society. The most recent Pew study of Jewish Americans found that only 22% of Jews said it was very important that their grandchildren marry Jews.
Meanwhile, Pew found that the number of Americans who have a spouse from a different religious group than their own rose from 19% who wed before 1960 to 39% who wed after 2010 — suggesting taboos have fallen among non-Jews as well.
Viewers of the movie won’t understand that people realize now that giving up connection with children and grandchildren deprives one of so much love, it’s just not worth doing.
The second largely out-of-date part of the story is how Margaret’s parents do not practice any religion — they don’t celebrate Christmas or Hanukkah — and tell Margaret she can pick a religion when she’s an adult. Margaret is clearly curious about religious matters — after all, as the title says, she’s always trying to talk to God.
I’m afraid that kids who watch the movie will not understand that today it is rare for Jewish-Christian couples to decide not to have any religion in their lives. The recent Pew study found that 57% of interfaith couples raise their children as Jewish only; that may include celebrating Christian holidays in a not-religious way, or it may not. The study found that 12% of parents raise their children partly Jewish and partly another religion. Some 30% do not raise their children Jewish at all; they may be raised Christian only, maybe with or without Jewish holidays, or with no religion at all.
There’s no suggestion in the movie that for Jewish-Christian interfaith families like Margaret’s, engaging in a religious community — whether Jewish, Christian, or both — can be a profound source of meaning and connection. Instead, the message is that religion is boring and confusing. In the movie’s synagogue scene, everything is unfamiliar to Margaret because she had no prior experience, and incomprehensible because all in Hebrew. I’m afraid that kids who watch the movie will have no idea that Jewish worship services can be lively and meaningful — even with lots of Hebrew.
The dramatic climax of the movie is a scene in which the Christian grandparents show up to say that Margaret should be baptized. They’ve had no contact with her for 12 years. The Jewish grandmother’s declaration that Margaret is Jewish because she went to services once is equally ridiculous. In over twenty-five years working with and studying interfaith families, I almost never encountered this kind of conflict. I’m afraid viewers won’t understand that this kind of fighting over a granddaughter’s religious identity — instead of respecting her parents’ decisions about religion — thankfully is very rare.
Fiction seems to need conflict. There is a paucity of positive messaging about interfaith families being happily engaged in fulfilling religious communities with supportive grandparents. Perhaps those stories wouldn’t sell — but they are the reality for so many interfaith families. It is very unfortunate that this movie will leave tween and teen viewers — especially those from interfaith families — questioning that reality.
—
The post The ‘Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret’ movie is a dated view of intermarriage appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Belgium Reverses Decision to Cut Federal Security in Antwerp’s Jewish District Amid Community Outcry
Police officers on patrol in the Belgian city of Antwerp. Photo: Reuters / Nicolas Maeterlink
After facing strong opposition from public officials and the local Jewish community over plans to withdraw federal security in Antwerp’s Jewish district, the Belgian government announced it will maintain current security measures, keeping federal police deployed for the time being.
Belgian Interior Minister Bernard Quintin announced on Thursday that federal officers will remain deployed in the district, reversing an earlier government plan to cut the police presence there by roughly half. The reversal followed Quintin’s meeting with representatives of Antwerp’s Jewish community
Avec des représentants de la communauté juive d’#Anvers.
Leur sécurité est une priorité absolue: les dispositifs actuellement en place sont maintenus.
Je souhaite les renforcer par la présence de #militaires et espère que cette mesure pourra aboutir dans les heures à venir. pic.twitter.com/ODKh8sjMZ6
— Bernard Quintin (@BernardQuintin_) December 18, 2025
This latest decision comes just days after a deadly attack on a Hanukkah celebration at Sydney’s Bondi Beach that left 15 dead and at least 40 injured, amid ongoing concerns about threats to Jewish communities worldwide.
On Monday, the Antwerp branch of the far-right political party Vlaams Belang had called for increased protection for Jewish schools and institutions during a city council meeting, Belgian media reported.
The government had originally rejected calls to bolster security, planning instead to withdraw the federal deployment, a move that sparked outrage from city leaders and renewed concern within the Jewish community amid ongoing threats.
Addressing these concerns, Quintin stressed that protecting Jewish sites is a top priority for the government, but emphasized that the federal police presence in Antwerp is not intended as a permanent solution, with local police responsible for maintaining security on the ground.
Antwerp Mayor Els van Doesburg had condemned the government’s earlier decision as “incomprehensible,” warning that the city cannot risk a security gap, especially in the wake of the Bondi Beach attack on Sunday.
“There must be no vacuum in the safety of Antwerp’s Jewish quarter,” Doesburg told Belgian media. “This is something we have to do together. It goes beyond the Antwerp police.”
Since the deadly attack at Brussels’ Jewish Museum in 2014, security measures have been strengthened, with Belgian intelligence consistently warning of elevated threats to Jewish sites.
In response, Antwerp has long maintained a mixed model in which local and federal police share responsibility for their protection.
The federal government has now proposed an alternative plan to deploy military personnel at Jewish community sites in Antwerp to support local police and increase capacity, though a government-wide consensus has yet to be reached.
Jewish community leaders had previously sharply criticized proposals to reduce security, dismissing Quintin’s explanation and denouncing it as a “political decision.”
Ralph Pais, deputy chair of the Jewish Information and Documentation Center (JID), a Belgian nonprofit that combats antisemitism, noted that the planned withdrawal, both in its timing and execution, had heightened concern within the community.
Despite the community’s expectation that authorities would address the issue, Pais had warned that inadequate security could lead to serious problems.
Dus geen 48 uur na de verschrikkelijke aanslag op joden in Australië zet nota bene onze minister van Binnenlandse Zaken @BernardQuintin_ de federale politiebeveiliging in @Stad_Antwerpen stop!
Burgemeester @elsvandoesburg vindt het uiteraard…
— JID (@s_antisemitisme) December 16, 2025
Van Doesburg had called for federal officers to remain in place until a suitable replacement could be established, whether through increased local police staffing or the deployment of military personnel — a request now addressed by the government’s decision to maintain current measures.
The European Jewish Association (EJA) said in a statement that it “welcomed” the move to maintain current federal police levels in Antwerp, noting that the initial plan “caused deep concern within the Jewish community and beyond.”
“This decision follows direct engagement with elected officials and Jewish representatives and sends an important message: the safety of Jewish life is a core responsibility of the state and cannot be subject to uncertainty or gradual erosion,” the EJA said. “The EJA wishes to express its sincere appreciation to [Quintin] for listening carefully to these concerns and for acting decisively to prevent any security vacuum. We also commend MP Michael Freilich, who raised the issue forcefully in Parliament.”
Uncategorized
NFL star apologizes for antisemitic hand gesture on controversial livestream
An NFL star has apologized for an antisemitic gesture he mimicked on a livestream earlier this week.
Puka Nacua, a third-year wide receiver who plays for the Los Angeles Rams, made the gesture after he was encouraged to on Tuesday by controversial livestreamer Adin Ross. Ross, who is Jewish, suggested Nacua incorporate the gesture into his touchdown celebration.
On Thursday, after the gesture was widely condemned online and drew responses from the NFL and the Rams, Nacua released a statement.
“When I appeared the other day on a social media livestream, it was suggested to me to perform a specific movement as part of my next touchdown celebration,” reads the statement, which featured the branding of Stand Up To Jewish Hate, an organization founded by Robert Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots. “At the time, I had no idea this act was antisemitic in nature and perpetuated harmful stereotypes against Jewish people.
“I deeply apologize to anyone who was offended by my actions as I do not stand for any form of racism, bigotry or hate of another group of people.”
The gesture — lowering the head into the shoulders while rubbing a hand over a fist — is sometimes known as the “Covetous Jew.”
Neither the Rams nor the NFL said if Nacua would face consequences for the incident in separate statements Thursday.
“The NFL strongly condemns all forms of discrimination and derogatory behavior directed towards any group or individual,” the league said in a statement Thursday. “The continuing rise of antisemitism must be addressed across the world, and the NFL will continue to stand with our partners in this fight. Hatred has no place in our sport or society.”
The Rams wrote, “There is no place in this world for Antisemitism as well as other forms of prejudice or hostility towards the Jewish people and people of any religion, ethnicity, or race.”
Nacua, who finished second in 2023 voting for NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year, received backlash over several statements he made during the livestream. He accused referees of bias and making calls for clout, saying “These guys are lawyers. They want to be on TV, too.” He also claimed that “concussions are all in your head, you just can’t think about it.”
Controversy is more familiar territory for Ross, who was banned from the streaming platform Twitch for more than two years due to his failure to moderate the torrent of racist and antisemitic comments in his stream’s live chat. He has hosted avowed antisemite Nick Fuentes several times on his stream; according to SBNation’s James Dator, “Ross has a reputation for allowing antisemitism on his show, often done under the guise of ‘joking.’”
The post NFL star apologizes for antisemitic hand gesture on controversial livestream appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
US Senate Passes Intel Bill With Key Measures Targeting Iran
US Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) speaks during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, March 11, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Julia Nikhinson
The US Senate has passed the Intelligence Authorization Act, annual legislation that authorizes funding and sets policy for the intelligence community, with key measures targeting Iran’s nuclear capabilities and other threats to American national security.
The bill, which received bipartisan support, includes measures such as “prohibiting the intelligence community from contracting with Chinese military companies, improving the security of CIA installations, identifying the threat to America’s food security posed by communist China, and directing necessary resources towards defending our nation from threats posed by Iran,” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said in a statement on Wednesday.
The legislation is part of the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which sets defense policy and authorizes funding levels. Lawmakers in the Senate passed the NDAA on Wednesday after their counterparts in the House did so last week.
“I’m glad this bill passed both houses of Congress as part of the NDAA and I look forward to it being signed into law by the president,” Cotton said.
Regarding intelligence, the bill includes measures aimed at suppressing Tehran’s ability to acquire a nuclear weapon. The legislation expands congressional oversight of Iran’s uranium enrichment program and any efforts toward weapons development.
The bill also formally enshrines limits on the movement of Iranian diplomats on American soil, aligning them with existing limits already applied to diplomats from China, Russia, and North Korea. It also allocates additional resources to bolster US defenses against a range of Iranian threats, including proxy terrorist groups and potential assassination schemes against American citizens. The legislation furhter requires intelligence agencies with knowledge of Iranian lethal threats to report all information to the FBI and to the intended target.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, touted the bill’s bolstering of resources to intelligence agencies.
“I thank my colleagues and am glad to see this bill pass once again on a strong bipartisan basis. It provides the intelligence community the resources it needs to do its mission while ensuring that we maintain rigorous oversight of the [intelligence committee’s] activities,” Warner said in a statement.
Since returning to the White House in January, the Trump administration has ramped up US sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, human rights abuses, and support for terrorist groups across the Middle East and around the world. During Trump’s first term, the US withdrew from a 2015 deal with Iran that placed temporary restrictions on the Iranian nuclear program in exchange for lifting sanctions, arguing it was too weak and would undermine American interests.
In response, Iran has gone to extensive lengths to obscure its nuclear activity and evade accountability from the international community, according to international nuclear watchdogs. Nonetheless, Iran has continued to claim that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes rather than building weapons.
The UK, France, and Germany said earlier this year there was no “credible civilian justification” for Iran’s recent nuclear activity, including the enrichment of uranium to near weapons-grade levels, arguing it “gives Iran the capability to rapidly produce sufficient fissile material for multiple nuclear weapons.”
In September, US Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rick Scott (R-FL) introduced the Strengthening Entry Visa Enforcement and Restrictions (SEVER) Act, which would prohibit members of Iran’s government, particularly those sanctioned for supporting the regime, from receiving US visas. The US has also placed severe sanctions on Iran’s oil exports.
In June, the US bombed three key Iranian nuclear sites during the 12-day war between Iran and Israel. The US had previously tried to negotiate a new nuclear deal with Tehran, to no avail.