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
VIDEO: Rabbi Yosef Ber Soloveitchik speaks about the writer I. L. Peretz
אין די 1950ער האָט דער אָנגעזעענער רבֿ יוסף־בער סאָלאָווייטשיק (1903 — 1993) אָפּגעהאַלטן אַן אייגנאַרטיקע דרשה אויף ייִדיש פֿאַר אַן אומגעריכטן עולם: מיטגלידער פֿונעם אַרבעטער רינג. גערעדט האָט ער וועגן דעם גרויסן ייִדישן שרײַבער י. ל. פּרץ. אַ רעקאָרדירונג פֿון יענער לעקציע האָט מען לעצטנס אַרויפֿגעשטעלט אויף יוטוב.
הרבֿ סאָלאָווייטשיק איז געווען באַקאַנט פֿאַר זײַנע קלאָרע, פֿאַרשטענדלעכע דרשות און שיעורים, וואָס ער האָט תּמיד געהאַלטן אויף ייִדיש, כאָטש ער האָט זייער גוט געקענט ענגליש.
דער רבֿ — ווי עס רופֿן אים עד־היום זײַנע תּלמידים און אָנהענגער — הייבט אָן זײַן רעדע מיט דער פֿראַגע, „ווי קום איך, אַ גמרא־ייִד, צו רעדן וועגן פּרצן, אַ ראַדיקאַל, אַ מסכּיל, אַן אַפּיקורס, וועמען די אָרטאָדאָקסיע האָט כּמעט מחרים [געווען]?“
גלײַך נאָך דעם נעמט ער זיך אַנאַליזירן דעם אינערלעכן קאָנפֿליקט בײַ פּרצן, וואָס ער האַלט אַז מע קען זען דורך די פֿרומע פּערסאָנאַזשן פֿון זײַנע דערציילונגען. אמת, פּרץ האָט אָפֿט מבֿטל געווען יענע פֿיגורן, אָבער גלײַכצײַטיק — זאָגט הרבֿ סאָלאָווייטשיק — האָט פּרץ געהאַט אַ טיפֿע סענסיטיווקייט צו זיי, אַ גײַסטיקן מיטגעפֿיל, וואָס ער האָט דאָס גאַנצע לעבן געפּרוּווט דערשטיקן.
צווישן די דערציילונגען וואָס דער רבֿ דיסקוטירט זענען „באָנטשע שווײַג“, „אויב נישט נאָך העכער“, „דרײַ מתּנות“ און „דער משוגענער בטלן“.
הרבֿ סאָלאָווייטשיק איז געבוירן געוואָרן אינעם רײַסישן שטעטל פּרוזשענע, נישט ווײַט פֿון בריסק. זײַן זיידע איז געווען דער באַרימטער בריסקער רבֿ, ר׳ חיים סאָלאָווייטשיק, דער שאַפֿער פֿון אַן אייגנאַרטיקער שיטה פֿון גמרא־לערנען. ר׳ חיימס טאַטע, דער גרינדער פֿון דער דאָזיקער רבנישער משפּחה, וואָס האָט מחבר געווען דעם באַרימטן ספֿר שאלות־ותּשובֿות, „בית הלוי‟, האָט אויך געהייסן יוסף־בער.
להיפּוך צו זײַנע אָבֿות, וועלכע האָבן באַטראַכט די וועלטלעכע בילדונג ווי אַ טרייפֿענע זאַך, האָט דער יונגער סאָלאָווייטשיק פֿאַרענדיקט אַ גימנאַזיע אין דובנע. דערנאָך האָט ער זיך געלערנט אין אוניווערסיטעטן און פֿאַרטיידיקט זײַן דאָקטאָראַט אין 1932. אינעם זעלבן יאָר איז ער אַוועק קיין אַמעריקע.
דער ווידעאָ איז אַ טייל פֿון אַ סעריע יוטוב־רעקאָרדירונגען פֿונעם רבֿס דרשות אויף ייִדיש פּראָדוצירט פֿון Ohr Publishing. די ווידעאָס ווערן באַגלייט מיט ענגלישע אונטערקעפּלעך, כּדי צו דערמעגלעכן אַז מענטשן וואָס קענען נישט קיין ייִדיש זאָלן זיך אויך קענען צוהערן און לערנען פֿון די דרשות.
The post VIDEO: Rabbi Yosef Ber Soloveitchik speaks about the writer I. L. Peretz appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
University of Michigan will have a leader who defended pro-Palestinian protesters in court
A civil rights attorney who defended pro-Palestinian protesters in court and made social media posts viewed as pro-Hezbollah and antisemitic, has won his bid for the University of Michigan Board of Regents.
Michigan is one of a few states in which voters play a direct role in choosing university overseers. As a regent, Amir Makled (D) will help oversee expenditures at the university where his clients, the student protesters, were arrested. The position is unpaid and carries an eight-year term. Democrat Paul Brown won the other seat up for election, maintaining the board’s 6-2 Democratic majority.
Makled beat out Republican challenger Lena Epstein, who is Jewish and previously identified as a “Jewish Messianic believer of Christ,” but recanted the statement and later said she was “100% Jewish.” Mainstream Judaism does not accept Messianic Jews because they believe in the divinity of Christ and try to convert Jews to Jesus.
Epstein told the Forward in an April interview that the Democrats had handed her an opportunity to win the seat by endorsing Makled, who was facing intense scrutiny. In one of his controversial posts, Makled called Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah a “martyr” after he was killed by Israeli strikes in 2024. He lost an endorsement from Service Employees International Union for the posts and later deleted them.
In the regents race, voters picked up to two of six candidates, with the top two winning. Makled received 25.6% of the vote while Brown received 27.2%. Epstein received 22.2% while her fellow Republican Michael Schostak received 22.6%.
Makled’s election comes as part of a wave of Democratic Party wins, including in Michigan, which elected as Senator Abdul El-Sayed (D), who also faced severe backlash for statements related to Israel and Gaza and for appearing alongside streamer Hasan Piker, who has been accused of antisemitic rhetoric.
Israel played a major role in the rhetoric surrounding Michigan’s midterms. But voters, including 60% of Jewish voters that voted for El-Sayed according to early exit polls, favored sharp critics of the Jewish state to candidates in support of it.
The post University of Michigan will have a leader who defended pro-Palestinian protesters in court appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
This grandson of Holocaust survivors is headed to Congress. The ADL has concerns about his antisemitism record.
The election of Daniel Biss, a Jewish critic of Israel, to an Illinois congressional seat Tuesday has sparked a public feud between the Anti-Defamation League and the liberal Zionist group J Street over whether the ADL remains a credible voice in the fight against antisemitism.
After Biss, the former Jewish mayor of Evanston, Ill., won his seat Tuesday night, the ADL Midwest took to social media to express “serious concerns” about Biss’ “approach to antisemitism.”
J Street, which had endorsed Biss, hit back, noting that Biss is the grandson of Holocaust survivors and calling the ADL’s statement “a shanda,” the Yiddish word for disgrace.
“It is hard to read this statement without wondering how far the ADL has drifted from the organization it once was – a gold standard in our community for standing up against bigotry, hatred and discrimination,” J street wrote on X.
Biss, who speaks Hebrew and spent childhood summers in Israel, was elected with 75% of the vote in a district where 11% of the electorate is Jewish.
“It saddens me to watch the ADL, once a preeminent civil rights organization, devolve into an entity that traffics in fear, intimidation and extremism,” Biss wrote in a statement to the Forward. “This kind of rhetoric does nothing to keep the Jewish people safe—in fact, it undermines that very cause.”
The ADL has long faced scrutiny from critics who view the watchdog group as labeling too broad a swath of Israel criticism as antisemitic, while less forcefully condemning antisemitism when it comes from the political right.
“Our statement speaks for itself,” an ADL spokesperson wrote in an email to the Forward.
In its statement, the ADL pointed to a specific set of concerns involving Biss’ record as mayor of Evanston, Illinois, the college town home to Northwestern University.
Biss did not provide Evanston police support that Northwestern requested after reported “antisemitic conduct” at the Gaza war encampment on campus in April 2024, the ADL said, “raising serious questions about whether the safety, dignity, and equal access of Jewish students were treated with the urgency they required.”
Biss has defended his decision not to dispatch police to the encampment, writing in response to a congressional inquiry that forcibly clearing the protest would have gone against police department advice and suppressed “constitutionally protected speech.”
The ADL also said that Biss “dismissed scrutiny of his response as a politically motivated attack fueled by AIPAC, rather than substantively addressing the concerns raised by Jewish students and community members.”
Biss made opposition to AIPAC a central theme of his primary campaign for Congress after the hardline pro-Israel lobbying group spent millions opposing him and supporting another candidate, state Sen. Laura Fine.
In an interview with the Forward in March, Biss said it was “absurd” that AIPAC opposes imposing any conditions on U.S. military aid to Israel. “And then try to enforce it with millions of dollars of dark money, is certainly bad for democracy and bad for our politics here in America,” Biss added.
At the same time, Biss faced pressure to his left on Israel in the primary, defeating Kat Abughazaleh, a Palestinian-American who has characterized Israel’s conduct in Gaza as a genocide. Biss, who has described himself as a progressive Zionist, declined to use the word genocide, despite repeated calls from Abughazaleh to do so.
In a March op-ed in The Nation, Biss wrote that he believed he was one of AIPAC’s top targets partly because “I’m the grandson of Holocaust survivors. My mother is Israeli. My extended family lives in Israel. AIPAC knew that they couldn’t dismiss me as anti-Israel or antisemitic.”
The ADL also criticized Biss for supporting the repeal of an anti-BDS law, which bars Illinois from investing public pension funds in companies that boycott Israel. That position, the ADL said, “raises additional concerns about his willingness to stand against efforts to isolate and delegitimize the Jewish state.”
In an April Substack post explaining his position, Biss said that he personally opposes the global movement to boycott Israel, but he does not believe the government should “stop people from using their economic agency to advocate for their values.”
Biss will succeed Rep. Jan Schakowsky, a Jewish lawmaker who represented the district for nearly three decades and was also an outspoken critic of AIPAC.
The post This grandson of Holocaust survivors is headed to Congress. The ADL has concerns about his antisemitism record. appeared first on The Forward.
