Judaism in William Finn's Falsettoland
Judaism and Jewish culture have always been central to William Finn,
writer of a trilogy of short works following Marvin, a homosexual
living within the Jewish faith. Falsettoland itself forms the final
part of the trilogy whilst In Trousers and March of the Falsettos are
the first two instalments respectively. Christianity condemns
homosexuality within its faith, therefore, surely Judaism would take a
moral stand and condemn any theatrical portrayal of such events? Did
the Reform movement which began to grow in America in the 1830s have
any effect upon the time Falsettoland was written, and, if so, how was
Falsettoland as a music theatre work subject to such effects?
From the outset it is important to define the boundaries within which
the term ‘Judaism’ and ‘Reform Judaism’ will be used. This paper
focuses upon Judaism (be it Orthodox or Reform) within America and
does not focus upon the origins of Judaism in Europe. Although perhaps
some beliefs and moral standings were reflected across the Atlantic,
for the purposes of this argument this will be negligible.
When analysing the musical content of Falsettoland it is important
that one does not get carried away on the intended meaning, although
only suggested as a guide and personal response to the music, the
analysis is by no means definite and as the author intended.
We’re free to borrow from both European operatic tradition and
American musical tradition, toss out what we don’t need and invent
whatever creature we want, whatever we choose. And above all else,
entertain.[1]
Jewish life in America changed dramatically throughout the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries. The majority of Jews being those wit...
... middle of paper ...
...omosexuality?
http://urj.org/ask/homosexuality/>
Ø Storr, A. Music and the Mind (HarperCollins, 1997)
Ø Volkman, E. A Legacy of Hate: Anti-Semitism in America (Franklin
Watts, 1982)
Discography
===========
Ø Finn, W. Falsettoland (New York: DRG Records Inc, 1990)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] LaChiusa, M.J. ‘I Sing of America’s Mongrel Culture’ in New York
Times 14 November 1999)
[2] Finn, W. Vocal selections from Falsettos (Warner Bros Publications
Inc, 1992) p.86
[3] Storr, A. Music and the Mind (London: HarperCollins, 1997) p.187
[4] Rossoff, R.D. What is Judaism’s view on Homosexuality? Accessed 10
January 2005
[5] Katz, L.. ‘What is a Bar Mitzvah?’ In Your Guide to Judaism
[6] Volkman, E. A Legacy of Hate: Anti-Semitism in America (Franklin
Watts, 1982) p.10
The Sadducees were one of the many distinct groups making up the Jewish faith during the first century. Their name is derived from the Greek and Hebrew languages and means the “righteous ones.” This may have been in direct relation to their belief that they were the descendants of Zadok, who was once a high priest during the reigns of King David and King Solomon and the revelation of the prophet Ezekiel advising that only those who were the “sons of Zadok” could approach God and the most do so only in the Temple. Typically wealthy aristocrats, they had supreme control over the priesthood, the Temple and how their followers viewed religion. The Torah and its strict literal interpretation were the central focus of this group as they rejected all other written and oral laws that tried to clarify, question or add to this sacred written work. They shared a special bond with the Roman forces controlling the area and benefited from this alliance allowing the Sadducees to exert their influence over political concerns for the region. They believed that Roman control protected the political ...
punishment of vice, and the exclusion of religious intolerance. But in order for a religion to be
The message of political alignment is a vast and varying concept, one that will be debated for as a long as party divisions exist. This divide however exists in not just the Christian community. We begin with the metaphor of a shepherds flock, blindly following what an individual says over ones own thinking. Boyd furthers this concept of alignment and how “many who left sincerely believe there is little ambiguity in how true Christian faith translates into politics. Since God is against abortion, Christians should vote for the pro-life candidate, they believe- and the preacher should say so” (Boyd 2). This blind adherence to one topic, one issue is unfortunately a failure on an intellectual level of all people, whether Christian or not. The
be known as the most exemplar of reform Rabbis in all of Europe ( 241)
History provides several horrible periods of violence, fear and murder. Such horrible acts against humanity have been committed in the name of religion, colonization, and racial superiority. The Holocaust, was one of the most catastrophic and saddest events in history, where about 11 million people, including Jewish children, families, and political dissenters were mass murdered. However, there exists another mournful and cruel period that marked the lives of many Sephardic Jews with secrecy and fear. One hardly hears about the harassment, rejection and humiliation of Sephardic Jewry in Spain, Portugal, and countries like Mexico, at the hands of the Holy Office of the Inquisition, which began in 1492. Due to these events, Sephardic Jews found themselves facing one of the most complex decisions of their lives and those of future generations; conversion, expulsion or death. The reasons for conversion are complex, as many converted by force and others for social or political reasons. As a result, converts became known as Conversos and “marranos /chuetas, and the latter are derogatory terms, as the names imply “swine” (Hordes 6). Another important term is Anusim, referring to those "whose conversion was prompted by violence and fear not sincerity” (Hordes 6). Marranos, were secretive people often, “keeping their children from their Jewish identity, until they reached an age where discretion could be trusted "(Telushkin 195). All of these events, have led to the complex phenomena, of the crypto-Jews in the new world, including Mexico and the American Southwest. Thus, sparking new areas of interest and research of their practices, customs, authenticity, and identification.
These situations have many tough decision and opportunity costs to think about. With universal health care specifically, one must consider the pros and cons of potentially adopting a plan of this magnitude. Looking at the positive side, everyone in the U.S. would be guaranteed healthcare. No matter the amount of wealth or immigration status, everyone is covered by the U.S. government under a single payer system. Americans would be entitled to any medical necessity such as emergencies, check-ups, screenings, treatments, rehabs, and medications (“Bernie Sanders on Healthcare”). Now at what cost one may ask? Surely cost would increase right? Actually, medical cost would become overall cheaper for one to pay according to one proposed plan. Given that more Americans will be paying, less will be required to pay per person to cover the expenses (“Bernie Sanders on Healthcare”). Additionally, with more insured Americans, overall public health will improve and lead to more eligible working Americans. In the long term, this plan will help grow and stimulate the economic growth that the United States has been looking for so desperately. To add on to economic growth, this proposed plan will create jobs in the medical field and lift the financial burden off businesses. This means businesses would no longer be required to pay health benefits to their employees. Instead, businesses can focus on investing into their company’s growth and infrastructure (“Health Care for All”). Lastly, by adopting a universal health care system, Americans would no longer have to deal with medical bankruptcies. All expenses and bills would be covered by the U.S. government ("Right to Health Care ProCon.org”). This would leave the American people to focus on paying for other essential expenses and living costs. Now why hasn’t the U.S. adopted a similar plan already? First, one must consider the potential flaws in a
Americans these days need an affordable universal health insurance from the American government , Can the government give what the people need ? First of all many americans owe the government cause they can’t afford their medications , Second of all is Obama care really is worth it ? , Furthermore the US’s medical System is not working for most of the people who is on medication. US spends far and away more on healthcare than any other. Half of the americans are uninsured by the government. Over Half of the american population hasn’t gotten their Insurance and even if they do they still pay a lot of money for their medication.
I say this because a person shouldn’t have to pay ridiculous rates for quality care and I like to know that when I have to get insurance, I’ll have more protection against discrimination since I’m female. And, it’s unfair that certain groups of people pay higher rates because they’re considered to carry a higher risk for something that may never be a factor. If they prove themselves to be high risk by behavior, their lifestyle, or their condition worsens, then, prices should increase. Problems health care reform could cause would be religious tension because of contradictions between law and morals. Another possible problem could be employees paying more for health coverage from their
People who are in favor of universal health care in the U.S. use the argument that the U.S. was built upon the basic ideals, the “unalienable Rights” of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” and that we all have the right to at least a minimum standard of living. To deny universal health care is to deny these basic ideals and rights to the people and therefore unconstitutional. Not only is it unconstitutional, it is also immoral. It is immoral to deny people health care, allowing them to suffer and even die, just because they cannot afford it and to force people to pay so much money that they go bankrupt for a basic right. In 2007 about 62% of all U.S. bankruptcies were related to medical expenses. If the U.S. had universal health care, medical bankruptcies would no longer be an issue (Top 10 Pros & Cons). Universal health care would also be beneficial to the economy. Businesses and employers would no longer have to pay for health insurance for their employees and the government wouldn’t waste as much per capita on health care as it does now without a universal health care system. It would also allow people to be more willing to take entrepreneurial risks because they won’t fear having to go without health insurance (Why The U.S.
Currently in the United States, acquisition of affordable health insurance plans through employers and private corporations is one of the main topics in the political landscape between liberals and conservatives. The traditional way of obtaining health insurance is either by subtracting a certain amount of payout from one’s salary/paycheck or pay out of pocket. However, many people do not have access to health care because of the high costs associated with poor insurance plans that require individuals to pay high premiums and deductibles, which may or may not contain good benefits such as free preventative care. In addition, due to the past economic recession in 2008, many employers could not afford to pay for health benefits and canceled numerous plans for many employees. This effectively increased the rate of uninsured Americans as well as the increasing health care costs.
Treatment of Jews in the 16th Century Looking at the history of Jews in England, it is evident that Jews were persecuted and murdered up until 1290, when Jews were expelled from the country. Jews were treated with strong disrespect both because of their alternative religious beliefs, and because of their financial status and ways of living. One can safely assume that Shakespeare never actually met a Jew, because Jews had been expelled three and a half centuries before he lived. Therefore the stereotypically evil character of the Jew was merely a myth, passed down through the generations. Shakespeare obviously intended on demonising the Jew of his play, making Shylock an outcast to the community of Venice.
Like many college students I have to pinch pennies to make it through school. Every last penny counts when budgeting my monetary supply. As a result of this I have found that I do not have enough to spare to pay for health insurance. Unlike most college students I am over the age of 23 and thus not covered by my parents insurance. Since I am only employed part time I am also not able to obtain it from work. This puts me in the company of the more than 42 million Americans who do not have health insurance. It is past time that the United States join the rest of the industrialized countries that have already decided to provide their citizens with health care. I believe a single payer health care system is necessary. A national health care system would provide a number of benefits. To begin with, it would cut the overall costs of health care. Secondly it would actually decrease bureaucracy by removing the many layers of insurance paper work patients and physicians are forced to go through in our current system. Finally it would increase life expectancy by allowing more money conscious Americans to receive adequate prevention instead of waiting until an illness becomes worse. All of these reasons point towards a national health care program as being the solution we need. Some opponents of single payer sytems, mostly financed by insurance companies that stand to lose billions from such a plan, point to some of the other countries that have enacted such plans as an advisory against our following suit. However they fail to take into account some of the methods unique to those countries and overstate some of the problems while ignoring our own.
Being a Canadian citizen, it is hard for me to think of life without any health insurance. I have had public health insurance all my life growing up and have been free to go to any hospital at any time and get some form of health care. Residing in the United States off and for the last 7 years I have experienced health care from both sides. I feel that private health care has huge advantages over public health care. In the following essay I will explain in three points why I feel strongly about private health care as opposed to public. What is better is always subjective, and I will not try to argue the point of health for all, but instead for the individual who is seeking the best health care possible, and is willing to put the resources into obtaining that. I will be addressing efficiency and quality, not inclusion of everyone (free health care), I will be addressing the root of this and not just that one argument, which would detract from my focus. I will not be getting into the political debate of socialism vs. capitalism, as that is a separate argument in itself, and this country is currently running under capitalism. Again coming from living in both a socialist and then a capitalist society, I feel I can do so in an unbiased manner.
Pro advocates of Obamacare would say that Obamacare was made to reform healthcre and make health insurance affordable, and that its working. However, by the end of 2013, the average premiums for Obamacare plans were 41 percent higher than what people had paid the year before (Mc...
Democrats and Republicans, despite their differences, both agree on two things: one, the United States spends an overwhelmingly large portion of their Gross Domestic Product on health care (approximately 10% more than the world average) and two, their current health care system is radically unjust. Even though a vast majority of the United States is screaming, “I don’t want Socialism!” in response to government-funded health care, the unassailable truth is that in America right now, there is a lot of Socialism. The taxes that the employed pay fund public education, the military, and roads; and those who do not pay taxes to contribute still go to their local high school and drive on the same highways. There is even Socialized medicine -- there is just an extremely ineffective system of medicine. This is because, in the US, anyone can go to virtually any hospital and get treatment for anything from a broken leg to a tumor in their brain. They may not be able to pay for the treatment — it might even bankrupt them — but they can receive treatment nonetheless. In 2009, according to the United States Census Bureau, about 48.6 million people (15.7% of the population) did not have health care, and this number has hardly changed in the last four years. The rich can pay out-of-the-pocket for any procedure they want, whether it be for a terminal illness or another lip injection, while the poor go bankrupt for falling off a ladder. The lack of coverage for the bottom 40% only increases the gap between the poor and the rich and the middle class is gradually disappearing, which not only places this country at a moral crossroad but also threatens a heavy blow to the economy. Affordable healthcare is a civil right that all members of a free nati...