Virginia winery a delicate blend of faith, family, and love of the land
HUNTLY, VIRGINIA, July 6, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) - The view at Rappahannock Cellars is breathtaking. An afternoon in late June brings a cooling mist that hovers just above quiet hills blanketed in bright green vines. The remote locale, with quiet, homey rooms and giant windows overlooking the countryside, seem to breathe: peace.
Inside, after popping open a bottle of Merlot, owner John Delmare tells of how he once described the somewhat grim reality behind it all to an audience of prospective vineyard owners whose ideas were still a little too romantic.
“I just got done processing 80 tons of fruit almost by myself this year,” he told them, “I work 12-14 hour days, dripping wet. I’ve still got this massive cold. I haven’t got a haircut in six months - and I got a bump on my head because I was trying to get some wine down and a bottle fell off, and I figured the best way to catch it was with my head.”
Rappahannock isn’t nearly the size of many of its neighbors in the highly competitive Virginia winery market, certainly not big enough to take the bulk of work off the shoulders of Delmare and his family. Yet it is one of the most successful, with careful, sustainable growing practices, producing 6,000 barrels a year from its 20 acres.
Although clearly passionate about the vintner’s art, even optimizing different grape varieties within the property’s many “micro-climates,” Delmare said the key to success has been his homeschooled family of 12 children - which brings its own unique bragging rights.
“Most wineries brag about being family owned and run, but not many can brag about their young children (ages 9 to 14 at the time,) working joyfully on their hands and knees, planting our original 15 acres of Chardonnay, Cabernet Franc, Viognier, and Cabernet Sauvignon,” states the vineyard’s website.
Business is booming at Rappahannock despite a difficult location - the winery is a 1.5 hour trek from D.C. - and even less glitz: Delmare noted that the rustic Rappahannock lacks the “Taj Mahal kind of building that others do.” Meanwhile, the winery boasts 1,100 members, including some who have been with Rappahannock since its beginning 10 years ago - something “unheard of,” according to Delmare.
“Why are we more successful than most out there? We make really good wines, and I think we provide an atmosphere that people don’t get anywhere else,” he said.
While other wineries are often implicitly adults-only, the family orientation at Rappahanock is noticeable from the first: a corner full of toys immediately greets visitors with children. Although most of Delmare’s children are now grown, he started out, he says, as “the guy in the tasting room [with] my younger kids” keeping him company.
Maintaining a family life at Rappahannock is no easy task:. The winery is open 360 days a year, leaving only five days each year for everyone to relax together. But the work means more than just a business to Delmare, who says his journey of faith was what cemented Rappahannock’s foundation.
“God has blessed us here,” he said, “so we’re trying to give back, first and foremost.”
The couple originally hails from California, where John Delmare first fell in love with the winemaking industry, but as an unbeliever: “I didn’t come into the Church until my fifth child was in the oven. Here I was, an agnostic at best in California with a fifth child on the way.”
Although his wife Lisa was raised Catholic, Demare said she was “was voted in high school the least likely ever to get married or have children.” It was his wife’s reversion to her Catholic faith that sparked Delmare’s own conversion, and the family suddenly found themselves seeking richer spiritual soil. Although the California climate is far more favorable to grapes, they settled down to begin again near the Catholic homeschooling hub of Front Royal.
“Tending a vineyard, you can really understand why Our Lord chose it for so many parables,” said Delmare. While “not all crops are beautiful,” the vineyard is a very different story. “When you’re up [working] at six o’clock in the morning…you can’t help but raise your eyes to Heaven and praise God.”
“It was so clear that God just opened door after door…there’s no question in our mind that God put us here.”
The Delmares have made their vineyard home a site of gentle evangelizing. Above one large window framing a view of vine-covered hills is written, “Introibo ad vineam Dei, ubi copia faetitiae est”: “I shall go into the vineyard of God, where there is great rejoicing.” Crosses here and there, and a Sacred Heart statue on the far side of the barn, also give clues to Rappahannock’s religious roots.
(Click “like” if you want to end abortion!
“We really don’t cram our family or our faith down people’s throats, but we don’t hide it either,” Delmare said. “Every once in a while you get that one person who will never come back as a result.” But for the most part, regarding their faith, “people I think have a certain warmness in their heart, whether they’re believers or not believers.”
Perhaps Rappahannock’s staying power comes from the fact that, unlike other destination spots in the D.C. area, what it offers is truly exotic to an isolated modern society.
“People don’t have families anymore,” said Delmare. “People come here and they feel like they’re a part of the family. And they connect with that.”
Texas AG to Target: Show me how you’ll protect women and kids from criminals
AUSTIN, Texas, May 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – The latest backlash Target received as a result of its transgender bathroom policy was a letter from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton asking the company to provide its safety policies to protect women and children from “those who would use the cover of Target’s restroom policy for nefarious purposes.”
“Target, of course, is free to choose such a policy for its Texas stores,” Paxton wrote in a letter to Target CEO Brian Cornell. He noted the possibility of the Texas Legislature addressing the issue in the future, but said, “regardless of whether Texas legislates on this topic, it is possible that allowing men in women’s restrooms could lead to criminal and otherwise unwanted activity.”
“As chief lawyer and law enforcement officer for the State of Texas, I ask that you provide the full text of Target’s safety policies regarding the protection of women and children from those who would use the cover of Target’s restroom policy for nefarious purposes,” Paxton continued.
More than 1.1 million people have pledged to boycott Target over its new policy allowing men to access women’s bathrooms. Opponents of the policy worry that it puts women and children at risk by emboldening predators, who may now freely enter women’s restrooms.
Target’s new policy is “inclusive,” the company claims, and they say “everyone…deserves to be protected from discrimination, and treated equally.”
“Texans statewide can no longer be silent on the issue of protecting the safety of women and children,” Texas Values President and Attorney Jonathan Saenz said in a statement Wednesday urging Texans to boycott Target. This is the first time in its history the pro-family group has called for a boycott.
“We need all Texans to understand that Target is using this radical change in their store policy to try convince people that our laws should be changed in this dangerous direction as well,” said Saena. “Our goal with this boycott is for Target to change its dangerous new policy, to raise awareness of the real threats to safety that these policies bring and to help businesses and lawmakers understand the significant opposition to such measures that is growing daily… Texans all across our state must join this Boycott Target effort before someone gets hurt.”
On Tuesday a male allegedly filmed an underage girl at a Frisco, Texas, Target fitting room. Police are searching for the man.
There have been numerous incidents of male predators across North America accessing women’s facilities and citing transgender policies as allowing them to do so.
Christians, America has reached a crisis point. Are you ready to take up this challenge?
May 5, 2016 (Albert Mohler) -- For nearly two and a half centuries, Americans have enjoyed the enormous privilege and responsibility of forming our own government—a privilege rarely experienced throughout most of human history. For most of history, humanity has struggled with the question of how to respond to a government that was essentially forced upon them. But Americans have often struggled with a very different reality; how do we rightly respond to the government that we choose?
To put all of this in historical perspective, the Framers of the American experiment understood that a representative democracy built on the principle of limited government would require certain virtues of its citizens. These would include a restraint of passions and an upholding of traditional moral virtues, without which democracy would not be possible. As the idea of limited government implies, the citizenry would be required to carry out the social responsibilities of the community without the intrusion of government and, thus, citizens would be expected to have the moral integrity necessary for such an arrangement. The Framers of the American Republic also agreed that it would be impossible to have a representative democracy and a limited government if the people did not elect leaders who embodied the virtues of the citizenry while also respecting and protecting society’s pre-political institutions: marriage and family, the church, and the local community.
Thus, the idea of a limited government requires that society uphold and pursue the health of its most basic institutions. When a civil society is weak, government becomes strong. When the family breaks down, government grows stronger. When the essential institutions of society are no longer respected, government demands that respect for itself. That is a recipe for tyranny.
Much of this was essentially affirmed until the early decades of the 20th century when progressivists began promoting an agenda that fundamentally redefined the role of the federal government in public life. By the middle of the 20th century, the Democratic Party had essentially embraced this progressivist agenda, becoming committed to an increasingly powerful government—a government whose powers exceeded those enumerated in the Constitution. At the same time, the Democratic Party also began advocating for a basic redefinition of the morality that shaped the common culture. By and large, however, the Republican Party continued to maintain a commitment to the vision of America’s founders, advocating for a traditional understanding of morality while also upholding the principle of limited government.
By the 1980s, the two parties represented two very different worldviews and two very different visions of American government. For decades, each party has acted rather predictably and in ways that accord with their fundamental principles. All of that, however, has now changed.
The 2016 presidential campaign has developed in an entirely unpredictable manner and, in many respects, represents a crisis in American democracy. This crisis is not limited to either party. Bernie Sanders, the Independent senator from Vermont, has won several stunning victories in the primary season over presumed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. While it is still extremely likely that Clinton will become the Democratic nominee, Sanders support among voters represents a populist flirtation with Democratic Socialism. This pattern is something few Democrats could have imagined just one year ago. What this foray into Democratic Socialism represents, then, is a radical adjustment of the Democratic Party’s basic economic principles. Thus, even if Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee, the process will likely drag her even further to the left, eventually redefining the Democratic Party before our very eyes.
But if it is remarkable to see what is happening in the Democratic Party, it is absolutely shocking to see what is happening among Republicans. Traditionally, the Republican Party has established its reputation by standing for the principles advocated by the American Founders—limited government upheld by the health of society’s primary institutions such as marriage, family, and community. Yet Donald Trump, the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party, represents virtually everything the Republican Party has typically defined itself over against. Clearly, both political parties are now redefining themselves. What is not clear is where each party will ultimately end up. What is also not clear is whether the American experiment can survive such radical political change.
As already noted, the American experiment in limited government requires that the citizenry and those who hold public office honor certain moral virtues and respect the institutions that are crucial for a society to rightly function. Yet, we now find ourselves in a situation where the three leading candidates for president show little to no respect for such institutions in their articulations of public policy.
This fundamental redefinition of the American political landscape requires Christians to think carefully about their political responsibility. Make no mistake; we cannot avoid that responsibility. Even refusing to vote is itself a vote because it privileges those who do vote and increases the value of each ballot. In truth, we bear a political responsibility that cannot be dismissed or delegated to others. Every Christian must be ready to responsibly steward his or her vote at the polls.
To put the matter bluntly, we are now confronted with the reality that, in November, Hillary Clinton will likely be the Democratic nominee and Donald Trump the Republican nominee. This poses a significant problem for many Christians who believe they cannot, in good conscience, vote for either candidate. As a result, Christians are going to need a lot of careful political reflection in order to steward their vote and their political responsibility in this election cycle.
Headlines from around the world tell us that other representative democracies are at a similar moment of redefinition. Political turmoil now marks the United Kingdom and also nations like France and other key American allies. Perhaps democracy itself is now facing a crucial hour of decision and a crucial season of testing. It is no exaggeration to say that democracy is being tested around the world; it is certainly being tested here at home. Yet if this is a moment of testing for democracy, it is also a crucial moment for Christian witness. This election cycle is going to be a particular test for American Christians—and we are about to find out if Christians are up to this challenge.
Reprinted with permission from Albert Mohler.
‘Sick and twisted’: Scientists keep embryos alive outside womb up to 13 days for experimentation
May 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Two teams of scientists have announced that they have been able to keep human embryos alive outside the womb for 13 days for the purpose of conducting scientific experiments. Some call the announcement the onset of a “Brave New World,” while others are petitioning lawmakers to lift sanctions that would keep scientists from experimenting on newly conceived babies even longer.
Researchers from Cambridge University, King's College, and Rockefeller University said in two separate reports that they stopped at 13 days only to avoid violating an internationally accepted law. At least 12 nations restrict the amount of time a newly conceived child may be kept alive in a laboratory to 14 days, the point at which scientists believe “individuality” begins.
The newest development allows scientists to observe newly conceived human beings after the point at which implantation in the womb would have occurred.
Professor Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz, one of the studies' lead researchers, said her team's breakthrough could advance embryonic stem cell research and “can improve IVF success.”
Some scientists have called on the international community to extend the amount of time such experimentation can take place.
“If restrictions such as the 14-day rule are viewed as moral truths, such cynicism would be warranted,” three experts – Insoo Hyun, Amy Wilkerson, and Josephine Johnston – wrote in a commentary published yesterday in Nature magazine. “But when they are understood to be tools designed to strike a balance between enabling research and maintaining public trust, it becomes clear that, as circumstances and attitudes evolve, limits can be legitimately recalibrated.”
Pro-life experts said the experimentation destroys human life and could lead to grave ethical dilemmas by extending the research.
“No human being should be used for lethal experimentation, no matter their age or stage of development,” said Dr. David Prentice, a professor of molecular genetics and an Advisory Board Member for the Midwest Stem Cell Therapy Center. “The 14-day rule is itself arbitrary, and does not assuage those who believe life begins at the moment of sperm-egg fusion. Moreover, allowing experiments on human embryos beyond 14 days post-fertilization risks the lives of untold more human beings, because it further encourages creation and destruction for research purposes.”
Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, called the experimentation “sick and twisted.”
“Science has undeniably proven that a new human life, with unrepeatable DNA, begins at conception,” she said. “There is no reason for experimentation on that human life and science itself should not be heralding thae fact that a tiny human being can survive now for two weeks outside of the womb, all for the sole purpose of experimentation.”
Dr. Prentice noted that embryonic stem cell research “has yielded no benefit thus far,” leading even its most vocal advocates, such as Michael J. Fox, to admit it has not lived up to its promise.
“If this research does not stop at 14 days, where does it stop?” asked Prentice. “This is a risky step which could encourage further eugenic attitudes and actions.”
Dr. Prentice encouraged Congress “to have a full and open debate on the issue of human embryo research before the research community moves further without oversight.”