Uncategorized
How Judy Blume’s ‘Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret’ broke taboos around interfaith marriage
(JTA) — When Judy Blume’s young adult novel “Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret” appeared in 1970, intermarried families were a small segment of the American Jewish population. Perhaps 17% of Jews were married to someone who wasn’t Jewish; today, 42% of married Jews have a spouse who is not Jewish, and in the past decade, 61% of Jews married non-Jewish partners.
Through the 1960s, middle-grade and young adult fiction rarely acknowledged the existence of these families, reflecting and reinforcing their outsider status. Today it is routine for authors to address the reality of inter-religious and culturally mixed families, portraying them with insight and compassion. (See “Not Your All-American Girl” by Wendy Wan-Long Shang and Madelyn Rosenberg, “Becoming Brianna” by Terri Libenson and “The Whole Story of Half a Girl” by Veera Hiranandani.)
This change was made possible partly by Blume’s story of sixth-grader Margaret Simon and her one-sided conversations with God.
Blume’s status as a pioneer in young adult literature is usually associated with her honest approach to the emotional, physical and sexual milestones of growing up, with her works still attracting readers and still finding an honored place on lists of banned books. That legacy is being celebrated in April with a new documentary, Amazon Prime Video’s “Judy Blume Forever,” and a theatrical release by Lionsgate of a feature film version of “Are You There God?”
Yet her treatment of contested identity in intermarried families is as revolutionary as her openness about bras, menstruation and sexual feelings. Actors Lena Dunham and Molly Ringwald, comedian Samantha Bee and many authors, including Raina Telgemeier, Tayari Jones and Gary Shteyngart, have cited Blume’s influence on both their lives and their work. Book lists for intermarried families frequently list the novel as a resource.
Margaret Simon is 11 years old at the start of “Are You There God?” Her Jewish dad and Christian mom have pointedly ignored the possibility that their daughter might have questions about her identity. Along with other issues of teen angst, she feels compelled to decide if she is Jewish, Christian or neither. Without any guidance, the last alternative leaves her in a frightening void. As she pointedly asks God, in her ongoing series of questions for Him, “I can’t go on being nothing forever, can I?”
Margaret’s parents, Barbara Hutchins and Herb Simon, fell in love and defied their respective parents by marrying out of their faiths. They assure Margaret that she has no religion, but can choose one when she is older, oblivious to the fact that this solution seems more of a burden than a promise of future freedom. Their avoidance of any serious engagement with either religion or culture renders any possible choice unlikely.
Blume situates Margaret’s search within the specific landscape of post-World War II America. When the Simons decide to leave their Upper West Side home in New York City and move to suburban New Jersey, their decision suggests a coded reference to their religious status. Long Island is “too social,” an implied euphemism for “too Jewish.” Living there might have made it harder for their relatively unusual situation to be discreetly ignored. On the other hand, the more affluent Westchester and Connecticut are “too expensive” and “too inconvenient.” Farbrook, New Jersey has enough Jews for it to feel right for Herb, but not so many as to make their mixed family stand out.
Margaret also suspects that her parents’ are determined to put distance between the Simons and Sylvia, her paternal grandmother, who lives in New York City. This gregarious woman shows up at their new home unannounced and toting deli foods, making it clear that Margaret’s one unambiguous connection to Judaism is not going to disappear. While Barbara’s parents utterly rejected her when she married a Jew, Sylvia has pragmatically decided to accept what she cannot change. In the postwar era, more Jews began to abandon or minimize religious practice, while still maintaining ethnically distinct customs. Like holiday observance or synagogue attendance, ethnic Jewish culture is also absent from the Simon home. Sylvia’s Jewish food, her frequent trips to Florida, even her combination of sarcasm and smothering warmth, provide Margaret with markers of the tradition her parents have eschewed.
Still, when Sylvia repeatedly asks Margaret if her (nonexistent) boyfriends are Jewish, the young girl is baffled. Given her own lack of consciousness of herself as Jewish, why would Margaret care?
Rachel McAdams and Abby Ryder Fortson in the forthcoming film adaptation of “Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret.” (Dana Hawley/Lionsgate © 2022)
In the larger world of Farbrook, Margaret’s new friends seem to have more secure identities, conveniently defined by membership either in the “Y” (Young Men’s Christian Association) or the Jewish Community Center. Perfunctory attendance at Hebrew school until after one’s bar mitzvah is the furthest extent of her peers’ Jewishness. Margaret explains that her parents are “nothing” and that, prior to their marriage, they were Jewish and Christian, as if those identities could be cast off like an article of clothing. When Mr. Benedict, her enthusiastic young teacher, distributes a questionnaire, Margaret completes the prompt “I hate” with “religious holidays.” He attempts to draw her out about this troubling answer, and she scornfully observes that her teacher acted as if “he had uncovered some deep, dark mystery.”
On one level, he has. Her mother’s blandly universal definition of God as a “nice idea,” who “belongs to everybody,” is clearly a denial of the fractures in her family members’ lives.
Blume also captures the essence of mid-century non-Orthodox Judaism as comfortably accessible, yet also somewhat empty. On a visit to Grandma Sylvia’s elegant temple, the atmosphere is quietly decorous, the sanctuary filled with well-appointed congregants and beautifully arranged flowers. Sylvia’s rabbi greets Margaret with an enthusiastic “Good Yom Tov,” which he translates as “Happy New Year,” although it is actually a generic holiday greeting.
When Margaret later visits Presbyterian and Methodist churches, she notes the remarkable similarity among all three experiences.
The novel’s one incident of specific religious practice involves Margaret’s brief, unfinished confession in a classmate’s Catholic church. Having participated in bullying, Margaret tries to assuage her guilt through a ritual alien to both her father’s Judaism and her mother’s Protestant Christianity. She even momentarily confuses the priest with the silent God of her conversations. Nothing could be further from her parents’ rejection of religion, or from Grandma Sylvia’s loving assurance to Margaret that “I knew you were a Jewish girl at heart.”
When Margaret’s Christian grandparents decide to resume contact, the suppressed anger in the Simon home finally erupts. Herb is furious, and accuses his in-laws of only wanting to meet Margaret “to make sure she doesn’t have horns!” — a caustic reference to a persistent antisemitic myth. Blume had subtly foreshadowed this disruption of the status quo in a parallel event at school. When a Jewish student, backed by his parents, refuses to sing Christmas carols, the implicit agreement of the town’s Jews to quietly conform is broken. A Christian girl, in what seems an act of retaliation, then refuses to sing Hanukkah songs. These acts of resistance reinforce Margaret’s marginal status. Her intermarried family represents neither conformity with postwar norms nor an assertion of Jewish pride.
Blume appears to tip the scales in her portrayal of Mary and Paul Hutchins, Margaret’s maternal grandparents. Entirely unlikeable, simultaneously pushy and cold, they insist that the granddaughter they had never acknowledged is Christian. After their failed visit, Grandma Sylvia returns, along with her sweet and obviously Jewish new boyfriend, Mr. Binamin (“rhymes with cinnamon”). Readers rooting for the triumph of Margaret’s Jewish roots may breathe a sigh of relief here, but hope for a satisfying ending is illusory. Margaret’s search for a stable sense of self is still unfinished, and will not be satisfied by choosing membership in either the Y or the JCC.
For young readers, the novel’s discussion of religious identity proved as life-changing as its honest portrayal of puberty and menstruation. “I related to that kind of conflict of religion,” the comedian Chelsea Handler, who grew up in a mixed Jewish-Mormon home, told Blume in 2020. “At that time, I just found out my mom was Mormon, on top of thinking she was Jewish, and your books were such a reprieve for me and such a joy.”
More than 50 years ago, Judy Blume tackled a difficult subject, about both changing demographics and the search for authenticity in American Jewish life. Margaret’s conclusion that “twelve is very late to learn” about the essence of who you are still poses a challenge, while her persistent search for a meaningful identity offers a degree of optimism.
—
The post How Judy Blume’s ‘Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret’ broke taboos around interfaith marriage appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Seeking funding for a Yiddish project for kids or young people?
די פֿישמאַן-פֿונדאַציע פֿאַר ייִדישער קולטור האָט געמאָלדן אַז זי נעמט שוין אָן סובווענץ-אַפּליקאַציעס אויף נײַע פּראָיעקטן פֿאַרן יאָר 2027. די פּראָיעקטן דאַרפֿן האָבן פֿאַר אַ ציל דאָס שטאַרקן ייִדיש ווי אַ לעבעדיקע שפּראַך, באַזונדערס בײַ קינדער און דער יוגנט.
דער טערמין פֿאַר אַפּליקאַציעס פֿאַרן יאָר 2027 איז דער 7טער נאָוועמבער 2026. די אויסגעטיילטע סובווענצן וועט מען מעלדן אין דעצעמבער.
אַלע אַפּליקאַציעס מוזן זײַן אָנגעשריבן אויף ייִדיש און דאַרפֿן נאָכפֿאָלגן די אַפּליקיר-אָנווײַזונגען וואָס איר קענט געפֿינען דאָ.
אַפּליקאַציעס וועלן ווערן באַטראַכט אויף קאָנקורס-יסודות. מען בעט מען זאָל אַרײַנשיקן אַן אַפּליקאַציע (מיט אַלע נייטיקע בײַלייגונגען) דורך בליצפּאָסט צו:
applications@fishmanfoundation.org
The post Seeking funding for a Yiddish project for kids or young people? appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Democrats leader Golan approached by man with knife on Israeli election day
(JTA) — JERUSALEM — Israel Police arrested a man carrying a large knife after he approached Yair Golan, head of the Democrats party, as Golan was campaigning in Tel Aviv on Election Day.
“Contrary to reports, no stabbing attempt occurred,” the police spokesman said in a statement.
The police said officers at the scene noticed a “suspicious object” protruding from beneath the coat of a man standing nearby. When they stopped him for inspection, they found a knife in his possession.
In a statement, Golan’s party said the man approached Golan “in a threatening manner” and that “when Golan’s security guards blocked him, a large knife slipped from beneath his clothing and fell to the ground.”
Police described the suspect as a Jerusalem resident in his 20s. He was arrested and taken to a local police station for questioning. They said the investigation “is ongoing.”
Following the incident, Golan said “incitement and violence will not deter us.” In a statement to the press he blamed the attack on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s negative campaigning and highlighted the ties between one of his spokespeople and Qatar.
“This is the direct result of the poison machine operated by Netanyahu and his Qatari agents. I call on everyone who cares about security and democracy to go out and vote now, so that we can ensure the country we love so dearly becomes a free and safe place once again,” Golan said.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Democrats leader Golan approached by man with knife on Israeli election day appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Rebellion PAC’s antisemitic political ad could incite violence against Jews
Israel did not cause high grocery prices in America.
Israel is not the reason you don’t have free universal healthcare.
But a new political ad from Rebellion PAC depicts struggling young parents grocery shopping in Michigan and putting back a dozen eggs because of U.S. military aid to Israel, saying they can no longer afford basics like bananas because they are funding healthcare in Israel. The ad ends by saying Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers is for “them” — Democratic candidate Abdul El-Sayed is for you.
Rebellion PAC, an independent entity that legally cannot coordinate with campaigns or parties, is proudly promoting a political ad that is deeply misleading, inflammatory and dangerous for American Jews. The ad uses classic tropes blaming Jews for economic and social woes, the same propaganda used historically by antisemitic regimes in Nazi Germany and the USSR. The target in this ad is the Jewish state, but the familiar subtext remains: your family is suffering because Jews are taking your money.
This would be antisemitic in any context, but in the current climate it is wildly irresponsible. American Jewish communities are facing unprecedented domestic terror threats and a historic crisis in antisemitism.
In Michigan, where this ad is aimed at voters who may decide control of the U.S. Senate, an armed domestic terrorist drove a car packed with improvised explosives into Temple Israel. The intent was a mass casualty event aimed at killing as many Jews as possible, including the children in the preschool. Brave security team members stopped the attack, but the attacker was only a few feet from perpetrating what could have been the deadliest terror attack on U.S. children since Oklahoma City.
American Jews make up only 2% of the population, but according to the FBI, Jews made up 63% of religion-based U.S. hate crimes in 2025 — and roughly 14% of all reported hate crimes.
Every candidate across the spectrum, including El-Sayed and Rogers, should disavow and condemn the dangerous rhetoric in this ad. This ad takes real problems — the exploding cost of groceries and healthcare — and blames them on Israel. This is classic antisemitic propaganda.
El-Sayed’s campaign distanced itself from the ad without condemning its content.
“This ad is not affiliated in any way with the Abdul for Senate campaign,” El-Sayed campaign spokesperson Roxie Richner said in an emailed statement. “Abdul is focused on pushing back against Trump’s agenda that is raising prices for Michiganders. No one speaks for Abdul but himself and his campaign.”
It’s worth noting that the El-Sayed campaign did not disavow the content of the ad and only issued a statement via email. El-Sayed himself did not issue a public stance on social media or criticize the inflammatory and dangerous content of the ad. His response is wholly inadequate—it does nothing to confront the antisemitism in the ad, it simply points out his campaign did not make it.
Contrast this with his former opponent, Rep. Haley Stevens, who lambasted the ad on X, stating, “This type of fearmongering about Israel is wrong.” she went on to say, “Do we need to lower costs by building more homes, securing people’s health care, and creating a fairer federal tax code? Yes, we do!! How we do so is not by blaming the high costs of our goods on the only Jewish homeland in the world.”
El-Sayed should unequivocally condemn this ad and its content, not just distance himself from it. Every candidate should stand firmly against antisemitic rhetoric in electoral politics.
When bad actors tell people their economic problems are caused by Israel, it inevitably creates a dangerous situation for Jewish Americans. Though public opinion polls show falling support for the Jewish state, it’s difficult for Americans to take those frustrations out on Israel directly, so local American Jews become a convenient target for their misplaced anger. This is exactly what happened in Michigan at Temple Israel. A Hezbollah sympathizer took his anger on Israel out on the local Jewish population.
Americans are facing real issues. But Israel is not the cause. Our grocery bills are higher for a variety of complex reasons. Grocery inflation started during the pandemic with disrupted supply chains. Production costs have risen. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine raised global grain prices. Bird flu drove up the price of eggs. Tariffs have also impacted food prices.
In terms of healthcare, a Nov. 2025 Gallup poll found that 46% of Americans preferred a government-run healthcare system, while 48% preferred a system based mostly on private health insurance. Cutting or ending U.S. military aid to Israel would not change the fact that Americans are deeply divided on how we should address our healthcare systems’ deep-seated problems. That would require American lawmakers to agree on and enact changes to how our own system is financed and organized. This is an issue of political philosophy — not lack of funds. Israel is not preventing the U.S. from organizing or financing our own healthcare system. Ending military aid to Israel would neither reverse those food-price pressures nor establish universal healthcare. The ad offers struggling Americans a scapegoat for their hardships—and American Jews face the danger of being treated as that scapegoat’s local representatives.
Rebellion PAC’s co-founder and former Executive Director Brianna Wu decried the ad, stating, “I would have quit as executive director rather than produce this,” calling the ad “awful.” We should all follow her example.
Candidates, thought leaders and elected officials must all come together and condemn this dangerous and antisemitic ad. American Jews are already being discriminated against, attacked, and in severe cases, murdered by people who hold them responsible for Israel. Political leaders must reject rhetoric that puts an even larger target on our backs by turning us into scapegoats for America’s economic struggles and healthcare failures.
The post Rebellion PAC’s antisemitic political ad could incite violence against Jews appeared first on The Forward.

