Arroz con Pollo
Recipe: Alex Garcia

1 (3 pound) chicken cut into 8 pieces, skin removed
Salt and pepper
1 lime, juiced
1/2 cup pure Spanish olive oil
1 onion, small dice
1 green pepper, small dice
1 roasted red pepper, small dice
3 cloves garlic, minced
1 cup prepared tomato sauce
1 teaspoon ground cumin
1 bay leaf
1/2 cup dry white wine
12 ounces beer
1/2 cup sherry
3 cups chicken stock
1 1/2 cups Valencia rice, soaked in cold water for 1 hour
5 saffron threads
1 cup frozen sweet peas

Preheat oven to 350 degrees F.
Season the chicken with salt, pepper, and lime juice. In a large casserole or dutch oven, heat the olive oil. Brown the chicken, remove the chicken from the pan, and set aside.
Add the onions, peppers, and garlic to the casserole. Cook until translucent. Add the tomato sauce, cumin, and bay leaf; cook for another 5 minutes. Add the chicken, wine, beer, and sherry, and cook for 5 to 8 minutes. Add the stock, bring to a boil, and adjust the seasoning. Add the drained rice and the saffron.
Bring the mixture to a boil, cover, and cook in the oven for 20 minutes.
Remove the rice from the oven and add the peas, fluffing the rice and mixing in the peas at the same time. Serve hot.

I would like to argue that Luther and Calvin would react differently to a recent statement made by presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, in which he stated he believes it’s a lot easier and better to change the constitution to fit the word of “the living God” than to change God’s word to fit the Constitution. Luther would reject the ideas of Democracy since he wrote that kings should have rule and written rule goes under reason. Calvin, on the other hand, would appreciate what democracy stands for and would agree that some things would need to be changed.

It is evident that times have changed since Luther and Calvin graced this floating rock that we call Earth. Over this timeframe new people, technologies, governments, nations, reason, and philosophies have evolved. In America we are not a mass of servants who bow to an earthly king, rather we are a society of independent individuals who all have our own skills, thoughts and voices. With lessons learned from history, we as a society have come to realize that giving power to one person leads to utter chaos. To prevent chaos we have adopted a form of government in which we the people choose representatives who make our laws, judge us, and keep us safe from harm. A definitive system of checks and balances exists in our constitution. These checks and balances protect us from our government by limiting power.

According to Luther two kingdoms exist; “the first belong to the kingdom of God, the second belong to the Kingdom of the world” (Luther 8). In society today, we have many diverse religions as well as people who choose not to be religious, which is a right guaranteed by our constitution. As a whole, we have grown a tolerance for all the diverse religions co-existing in our country somewhat harmoniously, so much so that by today’s standards, we don’t just have two kingdoms; we have many. The freedom that makes this possible is granted through our constitution. Luther is a passionate Christian who would reject any individual who worships another God and place them in a category known as the wicked. If Luther lived today he would not accept our religious diversity.

Luther writes that the two forms of government must be distinct. “No one can be made just in the sight of God by the secular government” (Luther 12). He also explains that “Christ’s spiritual government does not extend to everyone” (Luther 12). According to Luther both of these must coexist, the secular being for the unjust since the word of the Lord has no bearing on them. The secular also protects and provides stability for the just. He gave a parable where ruling by the “gospel is like herding together wolves, lions, eagles and sheep in the same pen” (Luther 11) and telling them to be peaceful. He came to the assumption that the “sheep would keep the peace” (Luther 11) but they would not survive very long. To elaborate, the sheep would live like Christians in peace and harmony but the other savage wild beasts that represent the wicked would tear the sheep apart. When Luther stated “how he believes is a matter for each individual’s conscience and this does not diminish secular governments” (Luther 25) he affirms that men cannot be told to believe in something by the force of secular government.

When Luther says “setting a limit to power: it is not to have mastery over faith and God’s Word, but over evil doing” (Luther 28), it separates the two. How this separates the two relates to how our government separates the two. Churches are not allowed to set up laws and punish people; rather they deal with peoples’ souls. Likewise, our government does not tell us what to believe; it does however protect us if people attempt to harm us in the name of religion. An example of this would be terrorism by radical Islamic groups.

The only limitation to listening to secular government is that “we must obey God rather than men” (Luther 29). By this, if an individual is being forced by secular government to do something against God’s law it is null and void. Luther however writes that people should just do nothing to aid them. He goes as far as to say that we should be proud to be blessed if somebody ransacks your home while you stand for what you believe in. This would not hold true today because the 4th Amendment of the constitution protects us from unlawful search and seizure. As a society we have set up this system of checks and balance so that government does not have too much power. According to Luther if an injustice is brought upon by anybody including a ruler they should just take it and “keep to the gospel and suffer injustice as a true Christian” (Luther 15). Luther’s dynamic is that the king of a land is supreme but God trumps everybody including the king. In Luther’s eyes we should all lead lives that are subject to the will of the rulers without any question unless they command us to do something against God’s law.

It is evident that Luther would not agree with our constitution. While some of his theories do relate he feels that the power has been entrusted to maintain these rulers by divine right. With regard to written law at the end of Luther’s writing he goes on to say “written law is to be held in lower regard than reason, for reason is the source of all laws… and reason is not to be held captive be letters” (Luther 43). By this Luther feels that things should be handled by reason on a case by case basis, which goes against the Constitution, which stands for equal rights for all.

Although Calvin moves to the notion of having magistrates who are ordained by God acting on peoples behalf, he does also say that “there can be no doubt that he is recommending every kind of just government” (Calvin sec. 4). This is also affirmed when Calvin cited the bible: “there is no power but of God: the powers that are ordained of God” (Rom. 13:1). This would justify a government like democracy under the eyes of God. Since in democracy the rule is spread out because “several bear rule” (Calvin sec. 8), Calvin would also agree that the system of checks and balances in our government works well because “should any one be disposed to go too far, the others are censors and masters to curb his excess” (Calvin sec. 8). It also could not be stated more bluntly that different forms of government work since Calvin wrote “different countries should be governed by different forms of polity” (Calvin sec. 8) and that “in different regions a similar inequality in the form of government is best” (Calvin sec. 8).

Calvin does however contradict himself with his history of friction with heretics. This friction was so intense at one point that it resulted in the execution of Michael Servetus. Servetus had escaped from imprisonment in Vienna, Italy and could not go to France because he was afraid he would be recaptured. On Sunday attending church was a mandate in Geneva and Servetus was discovered before the sermon began. Calvin did not want to spend time in jail as an accuser so he got his secretary to do it for him. Later charges were set and a trial began, and eventually he was burned at the stake along with his books. Eventually this led to bitterness and some attacks against Calvin. (Michael Servetus: Execution of Servetus at Geneva)
In the Grand Rapids city limits you can drive down the road and see several different churches. Calvin would be unable to accept a government or society with as much religious freedom guaranteed by the first amendment of our constitution. While Calvin might be at odds with the freedom of religion, he would agree with everything else our constitution stands for. Calvin would also see that the United States is a large and diverse nation that needs a special form of government with a constitution.

Calvin would undoubtedly agree that the constitution should be changed to coincide with the Laws of God. “If the state is in a trouble condition, those things from which disturbances arise must be corrected by new edicts” (Calvin sec. 16). He would agree that our nation has changed since the constitution was written. Calvin would also despise the fact that Christians have to cater to non-Christians by keeping prayer out of schools. Therefore I felt Calvin would alter the entire first amendment to be more in line with God’s word.

Today things are much different than they were centuries ago. Society and population have grown as well as our thirst for freedom. The founders of America rejected the notion of having one ruler. They also wanted us to enjoy the freedoms listed in the constitution with a limited government. It is evident that Martin Luther would reject democracy because of these freedoms and order the power to be taken away from one ruler. If Luther were asked if the constitution should be changed he would likely tear it to shreds. On the other hand Calvin would agree with democracy for a nation as large as we are. He would also agree that things such as the freedom of religion need to be changed to coincide with God’s law rather than some contemporary view.

References:


Harro Höpfl, editor, Luther and Calvin on Secular Authority (Cambridge, 1991)

Beveridge, Henry. "Chapter 20. Of civil government." Internet Christian Library. 12 Feb 2008 .

"Michael Servetus: Execution of Servetus at Geneva." Michael Servetus - SIS. Servetus International Society. 12 Feb 2008 .

I would like to argue that both Rousseau and Locke would justify and agree with Pateman’s argument with regard to the fact that their social contracts are fraternal social contracts. Moreover, I will also argue that Locke, with reason, would eventually agree that times have changed. Then I will argue that Rousseau would clash with the notions of feminism that exist today.

We should first begin with the definition of fraternal. Pateman states that the “contract is made by brothers, or a fraternity” (Pateman, 40). According to Pateman all the early writers on Social Contract theory were men. A few of these men include; Luther, Calvin, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. Pateman then goes on to write that “it is no accident that fraternity appears historically hand in hand with liberty and equality, nor that it means exactly what it says: brotherhood” (Pateman, 40). It is evident that Pateman feels that this “brotherhood” is ingrained in everything to do with writings on liberty and equality. In her writing she states that Rousseau and Freud feel the “female body, subject to uncontrollable natural processes and passions deprives women of the reason and moral character which can be educated for civil society” (qtd. in Pateman, 44). That goes against the feminist mindset that “women possess the capacities we possess and can do what men can do” (Pateman, 44). According to Pateman, Locke defends the fraternal order when he “tells us that the strength and ability of the man (husband) is the natural basis of the wife’s subordination” (Pateman, 44). She goes on to explain that this subordination lead to the division into the 2 separate spheres. It was because of the 2 separate spheres that the education that women received could not be equal to men.

With regard to educating women by today’s standards Rousseau takes a bolder approach when he writes the following in Emile which is intended by the author to be a guide on how to educate children:

…Thus all the education of women must be relative to men. To please them, to be useful to them, to make oneself loved and honored by them, to raise them when they are young, to care for them when they are grown, to advise them, console them, make their life pleasant and sweet -- these are the duties of women at all times and what one ought to teach them from their childhood…
(Rousseau, “Emile” sec. 1279)

According to Rousseau it is the woman’s task in life to be submissive to men and do everything to make life bliss by being useful to them and to bring them honor. Moreover, the fact that he stated this implies it is how he believed we should raise our children. According to Pateman, Rousseau feels that the “sexes must be segregated to the greatest possible extent even in domestic life” (qtd. in Pateman, 45). She also points to Emile when she writes about how when Emile returned from learning about “politics and citizenship” (qtd. in Pateman, 45) he could “claim her body as a husband” (qtd. in Pateman, 45), in reference to Sophie who would be his new wife. That solidifies the fact that Rousseau felt men should dominate women.

When both Rousseau and Locke roamed the earth in an endless quest for knowledge, the philosophies of sexism and feminism were non-existent. Back then things were run and owned by men. While Locke does cite that God’s law states “children, Honour thy father and thy mother” (Locke, “Second Treatise” 30), in his writings it seems to go without saying that the mother’s authority only extends to the children when raising them. It is not clearly written that this is Locke’s opinion, however what is concisely laid out in his works is that authority concerning anything else belongs to the males.

Long ago, land was owned by men and only property owners could vote. While some states such as Wyoming had the right to vote as early as 1890, it was not until 1920 when the 19th amendment was passed that all women of age could vote in elections in the United States. It was not until 1928 in Britian that women were granted the right to vote on the same terms as men. In the United States we have not had a female president. While many other instances of oppression can be noted in our fraternal society, it is clear that the rights of women have blossomed and that women are viewed differently since the days of Locke and Rousseau.

If Locke were alive today he would see through reason that women can in fact be educated. Within a matter of time he would see women not only as professors but also women running cities such as Atlanta, as governors like in Michigan, and in the House and Senate. If Locke were to turn on the television today he would see Hilary Clinton running for President. On Google he would see that in Germany the female head of state is Chancellor Angela Merkel who was elected in 2005. While female heads of state are few and far between, they do exist. With regard to strength I am sure if he were to watch the Olympics or visit a prison and see a female guard he wouldn’t doubt that women have the ability to be strong. According to Locke “Reason must be our last judge and guide in everything” (Locke, “Essay” 14). Locke subscribed to theories through reason and by today’s standards, he would see also through reason that women can lead and are equals.

Judging by Rousseau’s writings one could figure out that he has a domineering complex over women that he would be reluctant to give up. In Emile Rousseau’s true colors on the male chauvinist belief shine in the following:

Once this principle is established it follows that woman is specially made to please man. If man ought to please her in turn, the necessity is less urgent. His merit is in his power; he pleases because he is strong. This is not the law of love, I admit, but it is the law of nature, which is older than love itself.
(Rousseau, “Emile” sec. 1255)

This again solidifies the fact that Rousseau believes that women are made to make men happy and a man does not have to do the same for a woman in return. He is justified in doing this because he is dominant.

Rousseau’s life was a disconnected one with regard to love and his children. Accounts say that he had 5 children with his mistress Thérèse Lavasseur and gave them to an institution. It is also noted that this was used against him by Voltaire. When Rousseau wrote about children Voltaire argued that Rousseau just deserted his own children at an orphanage. Rousseau countered by saying that they would have gotten a better upbringing than what he could provide and that by giving them away they would not have to deal with high society. His love life with his mistress also seemed more like a convenience to himself than anything else. It was apparent that Rousseau did not think much of women and if one with a feminist viewpoint approached him if he were alive today, he would likely discredit her for being a woman, causing a clash between their two opposite perspectives. In my eyes the clash would be much like the popular movie character Borat walking into a feminist meeting.

Times have changed since Locke and Rousseau. Society has grown to accept and thrive with women in avenues of authority. In conclusion, if John Locke were still alive today, he would subscribe to reason when making decisions about the roles women should play in society. He would see what women have done for society and would likely sway to agree with feminist arguments. Rousseau on the other hand would discredit a feminist simply because she is a woman, and in his eyes, women are subservient to men.


Bibliography


Locke, John, Second Treatise of Government, C.B. Macpherson, editor (Hackett, 1980) ISBN 0915144867.

Locke, John. "John Locke: An Essay Concerning Human Understanding." Enlightenment: Objectivist Scholarship. 10 Apr 2008 .

Pateman, Carole, "The Disorder of Women: Democracy, Feminism and Political Theory" Chapter 2, pp 33-57, (c) 1989 Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. "Book V." Contents for Rousseau's Emile. Institute for Learning Technologies. 10 Apr 2008 .

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, Donald Cress, trans. (Hackett, 1992) ISBN 0872201503.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, On the Social Contract, Donald Cress, trans. (Hackett, 1987) ISBN 087220068X.

In today’s society everybody hustles to the next stage in life. There is no doubt that modern marvels make things in life easier. Among so many things our automobiles are faster to get to work and we do not have to kill our food for dinner. Since the spout of industrialism our world has separated itself from so many things in so many ways.

In the good old days one could turn ice cream all day for a treat for a family to enjoy. Then in the 1960s you could go to the local soda jerk and watch them make your soda or sundae. Today you just ask and they bring one out to you. Most of our generation doesn’t even know what a soda is or why they all them sundaes.
These days to get furniture a person just drives to Art Van. The consumer has no knowledge of who build the work or where it even came from. While this is easy for the consumer and costs less, what happened to the person that poured pride into making a cabinet for somebody? Now, this is mostly done in a factory and since the work is produced in so many stages few even get to see the end product. Karl Marx dubbed this “the alienation of labor”. What is also interesting is how the factory that creates it not only pays workers low wages but is in a constant state of trying to manufacture it cheaper.

In photography, photographers use to have to buy paper, sensitize it and do everything mainly from scratch. They took pride in what they did and not everybody could do it. Over time photography has become easier for people to work with and more alien to the photographer. Even Albumen paper was produced in large factories so that people could sensitize it. Then cames the silver gelatin papers which made it so people did not have to sensitize paper. The darkroom was replaced by people sending in negatives made by the Brownies. In color photography the die transfer process was wiped out by PhotoShop and replaced with ink spitters that we call printers. Now some Kmart stores are abandoning photo processing because they can not profit with large internet digital photo producers. How alien is that? You do not even see who produces your photographs!

What happened to the candy store, cabinet makers, and soda jerks of yesterday? Have the modern day bourgeoisie sucked them all into the proletariat positions of factories. It seems unsettling that the small businesses that produce and see the work from beginning to end are fading while factories grow. I hope that photography never falls completely into the industrial complex. For my thesis I want to defend the small businesses that are on the brink of extinction and becoming archaic with a beautiful process that is now considered extinct and archaic.