Friday, March 25, 2011
Flamethrowers
It probably comes as no surprise to readers that this blog is growing. As of today, we're on target to exceed 62,000 visitors for the month. Ain't it cool?
That said, it should also come as no surprise that we've picked up a troll or two along the way. I'm specifically addressing Becky.
We deleted a snark from Becky last night, and she just graced us with another, even nastier snark because we didn't post her first one. Needless to say this most recent comment won't see the light of day either. I don't like feeding trolls.
Trolls always seem surprised that this blog reflects our values, namely conservative Christian homeschoolers and homesteaders. Uh, hello? What else did you expect?
I think it should be obvious by now that I welcome dissenting opinions as long as they're politely expressed. We have a reader in England who routinely disagrees with stuff I post, but she's not rude, crude, vulgar, or disgusting in her disagreements. Therefore I welcome her snarks.
But Becky and some other trolls are different. Nasty name-calling of this caliber isn't the kind of stuff I want my kids to read. And make no mistake, my kids read the blog.
Just as a reminder, this is a private blog. We control the content just as we moderate the comments that get posted. Trolls can post all the ugly revolting snarks they want, but they shouldn't be surprised when those comments get deleted.
To all my faithful polite readers: Thank you for coming. You mean the world to me. To all my trolls: If you want to get nasty, go start your own blog.
That said, it should also come as no surprise that we've picked up a troll or two along the way. I'm specifically addressing Becky.
We deleted a snark from Becky last night, and she just graced us with another, even nastier snark because we didn't post her first one. Needless to say this most recent comment won't see the light of day either. I don't like feeding trolls.
Trolls always seem surprised that this blog reflects our values, namely conservative Christian homeschoolers and homesteaders. Uh, hello? What else did you expect?
I think it should be obvious by now that I welcome dissenting opinions as long as they're politely expressed. We have a reader in England who routinely disagrees with stuff I post, but she's not rude, crude, vulgar, or disgusting in her disagreements. Therefore I welcome her snarks.
But Becky and some other trolls are different. Nasty name-calling of this caliber isn't the kind of stuff I want my kids to read. And make no mistake, my kids read the blog.
Just as a reminder, this is a private blog. We control the content just as we moderate the comments that get posted. Trolls can post all the ugly revolting snarks they want, but they shouldn't be surprised when those comments get deleted.
To all my faithful polite readers: Thank you for coming. You mean the world to me. To all my trolls: If you want to get nasty, go start your own blog.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Baby chicks
It's that time of year again - time to order baby chicks.
In addition to meat birds (Cornish crosses), we wanted to get some more layers (we're down to ten right now, some of which are older and will be butchered when the new layers mature). We like having a mixed flock, so I wanted to get some Americaunas, Black Australorps, Barred Rocks, Golden-laced Wyandottes, and Silver-laced Wyandottes. We figured if we ordered them from our local feed store to arrive near the end of May, that would be suitable timing.
But when I went into the feed store yesterday, the chicks they had on order for the end of May didn't correspond at all with what I wanted to order. "What is it you want?" asked the clerk.
I rattled off my list of preferred breeds, and she replied, "Those are all arriving tomorrow."
Meaning today.
Okay, so we got our chicks a little sooner than we anticipated.
Fortunately it's never a huge deal to get animals unexpectedly around here. First thing to do was find a place to put the chicks. I got the stock tank out of the unused pasture and cleaned it out.
Naturally the gang had to monitor these proceedings.
The feed store had lots and lots of chicks available, though many are already reserved for customers like us who ordered specific breeds.
I also bought a bale of shavings for bedding, and a 50-lb bag of chick starter (feed). Once we got home, we set up their new digs. The yellow chicks are Cornish crosses, meat birds which will get butchered in about three months. The darker chicks are assorted layers.
Of course the kids can't keep their hands off them.
Not that I blame them...they're awfully darned cute.
In addition to meat birds (Cornish crosses), we wanted to get some more layers (we're down to ten right now, some of which are older and will be butchered when the new layers mature). We like having a mixed flock, so I wanted to get some Americaunas, Black Australorps, Barred Rocks, Golden-laced Wyandottes, and Silver-laced Wyandottes. We figured if we ordered them from our local feed store to arrive near the end of May, that would be suitable timing.
But when I went into the feed store yesterday, the chicks they had on order for the end of May didn't correspond at all with what I wanted to order. "What is it you want?" asked the clerk.
I rattled off my list of preferred breeds, and she replied, "Those are all arriving tomorrow."
Meaning today.
Okay, so we got our chicks a little sooner than we anticipated.
Fortunately it's never a huge deal to get animals unexpectedly around here. First thing to do was find a place to put the chicks. I got the stock tank out of the unused pasture and cleaned it out.
Naturally the gang had to monitor these proceedings.
The feed store had lots and lots of chicks available, though many are already reserved for customers like us who ordered specific breeds.
I also bought a bale of shavings for bedding, and a 50-lb bag of chick starter (feed). Once we got home, we set up their new digs. The yellow chicks are Cornish crosses, meat birds which will get butchered in about three months. The darker chicks are assorted layers.
Of course the kids can't keep their hands off them.
Not that I blame them...they're awfully darned cute.
*Sigh.* I've failed once again.
I always knew we were depriving our kids by raising them rural. Worse, we don't have the funds to jet-set all over the country to see the sights some people consider essential for raising well-rounded young people.
And now here's proof. An article on CNN explains fifteen places kids should see by age 15. Oops, Older Daughter is now 15 and she's seen none of these places. Oh the agony. Proof that we're failing to properly parent our children.
Of course, what this CNN articles does NOT tell is how to pay for all the trips to see these essential sights, most of which are back east. Between time away from the farm (meaning, house sitters), plane fare, car rentals, gas, hotels, food, and miscellaneous other expenses, I'm estimating it would cost, oh, about $25,000 to see all these "must see" sights. Donations anyone?
Here's what my poor deprived children haven't yet seen:
• The Grand Canyon, Arizona
• Redwood National Park, CA (though they've seen redwoods since two of my brothers live close to them)
• Monticello, Virginia
• The Freedom Trail, Massachusetts
• Niagara Falls, New York
• National Mall, Washington D.C.
• Williamsburg, Virginia
• Walt Disney World Resort, Florida (though they've been to Disneyland in California)
• Independece Hall, Virginia
• Alcatraz Island, California
• Ellis Island, New York
• Yellowstone National Park, WY/MT/ID (okay, we have plans to see this - someday)
• Fenway Park, Massachusetts (To see a baseball game? We don't even like baseball!)
• Craters of the Moon National Monument, Idaho (waaaaaay down south, at least a fifteen hour drive)
• San Diego Zoo, California
These are all worthy and noble sights (except Fenway Park to see a baseball game, ug), but the author of this little piece of nonsense has obviously never lived on a budget, even though it's filed under the "budget travel" category.
I also found it darkly amusing that part of the selection process for these fifteen sites included catering to "kids' abbreviated attention spans." A testimony to the plugged-in lifestyle of most of today's kids, I guess.
And now here's proof. An article on CNN explains fifteen places kids should see by age 15. Oops, Older Daughter is now 15 and she's seen none of these places. Oh the agony. Proof that we're failing to properly parent our children.
Of course, what this CNN articles does NOT tell is how to pay for all the trips to see these essential sights, most of which are back east. Between time away from the farm (meaning, house sitters), plane fare, car rentals, gas, hotels, food, and miscellaneous other expenses, I'm estimating it would cost, oh, about $25,000 to see all these "must see" sights. Donations anyone?
Here's what my poor deprived children haven't yet seen:
• The Grand Canyon, Arizona
• Redwood National Park, CA (though they've seen redwoods since two of my brothers live close to them)
• Monticello, Virginia
• The Freedom Trail, Massachusetts
• Niagara Falls, New York
• National Mall, Washington D.C.
• Williamsburg, Virginia
• Walt Disney World Resort, Florida (though they've been to Disneyland in California)
• Independece Hall, Virginia
• Alcatraz Island, California
• Ellis Island, New York
• Yellowstone National Park, WY/MT/ID (okay, we have plans to see this - someday)
• Fenway Park, Massachusetts (To see a baseball game? We don't even like baseball!)
• Craters of the Moon National Monument, Idaho (waaaaaay down south, at least a fifteen hour drive)
• San Diego Zoo, California
These are all worthy and noble sights (except Fenway Park to see a baseball game, ug), but the author of this little piece of nonsense has obviously never lived on a budget, even though it's filed under the "budget travel" category.
I also found it darkly amusing that part of the selection process for these fifteen sites included catering to "kids' abbreviated attention spans." A testimony to the plugged-in lifestyle of most of today's kids, I guess.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Storing food
If you remember, we decided to take some of our meager savings and buy some extra food for storage. We didn't get everything on our wish list, but we got a lot. We're "rounding out the corners" in terms of our preparedness efforts, and we wanted to lay in extra amounts of things we felt might be going up in price shortly: luxuries such as sugar, chocolate chips, and cocoa powder; but also some extra staples such as black-eyed peas, oatmeal, cornmeal, and rice.
Especially rice. We are huge rice eaters and rice is something we can't grow ourselves (unlike wheat). If I had my way (meaning, if we had the money) I would have literally a ton of rice stored away, though we have nowhere near that amount. White rice stores very well if properly prepared.
Which begs the question - how do you properly store rice? Here's what we did.
It all started a couple months ago when we got two food-grade barrels. We wanted these larger containers for - ta da - rice storage.
Once we had the barrels, we needed barrel liners, which are essential giganto-sized plastic bags. These types of barrels are used to transport such things as olives or anchovies or other (ahem) stinky things. The smell within the empty clean barrels can still be pretty strong. Thick food-grade plastic liners are available online, though we ordered them from a local source.
The next thing we needed was diatomaceous earth. There are two basic types of this material: food-grade (used for insect control in grain storage) and non food-grade (I think it's used to help keep swimming pools clean or something - not sure). It goes without saying we purchased food-grade diatomaceous earth. The non food-grade can poison you.
Diatomaceous earth works for insect control by scratching and damaging the waxy outer coating of the insects' exoskeleton. This means the insects are no longer water-proof, so to speak, and they will dehydrate and die.
If you do an online search for food-grade D.E., you'll doubtless find many sources. We bought fifty pounds for fifty bucks (that included shipping) and practically have enough D.E. to power the neighborhood.
One pound of D.E. will coat 300 lbs. of grain. Rice comes in 50-lb bags. This meant we needed 2.66 ounces of D.E. per bag of rice. Here Don is weighing the D.E.:
To mix the D.E. with the rice, we cleaned out one of our sturdy plastic 25-gal. farm buckets.
We poured the rice and D.E. in simultaneously. This proved to be such a dusty procedure that thereafter we moved this outside and wore a dust mask.
Then, with clean hands, I dug in and mixed. (This was where the dusk mask became necessary.)
Afterward we lined a barrel with a bag...
...and poured the rice, bag by treated bag, into the barrel (sorry, no photos). A barrel this size, we learned, holds about 375 lbs. of rice.
Next step: remove the oxygen. I purchased oxygen absorbers at the Mormon cannery, 100 for $0.10 each.
We placed about 15 of these oxygen absorbers on top the rice and then folded the plastic liner to squeeze the excess air out and seal the bag. Then we taped the liner shut with duct tape and put on the barrel top. The oxygen absorbers will absorb the remaining oxygen from the bag, leaving the rice in an anaerobic environment unsuitable to any insects or other life.
The rice is now protected against moisture, rodents, insects, and just about anything else that can be thrown at it. Stored in this way, rice will stay good to eat for many years.
Dried foods can also be stored in plastic food-grade buckets with gasketed lids (I get mine at grocery store bakeries). Line with Mylar bags, toss in some oxygen absorbers, seal the bags, put on the lids, and again you have food that will last for years.
Especially rice. We are huge rice eaters and rice is something we can't grow ourselves (unlike wheat). If I had my way (meaning, if we had the money) I would have literally a ton of rice stored away, though we have nowhere near that amount. White rice stores very well if properly prepared.
Which begs the question - how do you properly store rice? Here's what we did.
It all started a couple months ago when we got two food-grade barrels. We wanted these larger containers for - ta da - rice storage.
Once we had the barrels, we needed barrel liners, which are essential giganto-sized plastic bags. These types of barrels are used to transport such things as olives or anchovies or other (ahem) stinky things. The smell within the empty clean barrels can still be pretty strong. Thick food-grade plastic liners are available online, though we ordered them from a local source.
The next thing we needed was diatomaceous earth. There are two basic types of this material: food-grade (used for insect control in grain storage) and non food-grade (I think it's used to help keep swimming pools clean or something - not sure). It goes without saying we purchased food-grade diatomaceous earth. The non food-grade can poison you.
Diatomaceous earth works for insect control by scratching and damaging the waxy outer coating of the insects' exoskeleton. This means the insects are no longer water-proof, so to speak, and they will dehydrate and die.
If you do an online search for food-grade D.E., you'll doubtless find many sources. We bought fifty pounds for fifty bucks (that included shipping) and practically have enough D.E. to power the neighborhood.
One pound of D.E. will coat 300 lbs. of grain. Rice comes in 50-lb bags. This meant we needed 2.66 ounces of D.E. per bag of rice. Here Don is weighing the D.E.:
To mix the D.E. with the rice, we cleaned out one of our sturdy plastic 25-gal. farm buckets.
We poured the rice and D.E. in simultaneously. This proved to be such a dusty procedure that thereafter we moved this outside and wore a dust mask.
Then, with clean hands, I dug in and mixed. (This was where the dusk mask became necessary.)
Afterward we lined a barrel with a bag...
...and poured the rice, bag by treated bag, into the barrel (sorry, no photos). A barrel this size, we learned, holds about 375 lbs. of rice.
Next step: remove the oxygen. I purchased oxygen absorbers at the Mormon cannery, 100 for $0.10 each.
We placed about 15 of these oxygen absorbers on top the rice and then folded the plastic liner to squeeze the excess air out and seal the bag. Then we taped the liner shut with duct tape and put on the barrel top. The oxygen absorbers will absorb the remaining oxygen from the bag, leaving the rice in an anaerobic environment unsuitable to any insects or other life.
The rice is now protected against moisture, rodents, insects, and just about anything else that can be thrown at it. Stored in this way, rice will stay good to eat for many years.
Dried foods can also be stored in plastic food-grade buckets with gasketed lids (I get mine at grocery store bakeries). Line with Mylar bags, toss in some oxygen absorbers, seal the bags, put on the lids, and again you have food that will last for years.
Swans on the Lake
When Older Daughter was first learning piano, she learned a charming little song called Swans on the Lake.
Last Sunday coming home from church, we had the real live version. Passing by the lake, we stopped to photograph hundreds and hundreds of Tundra swans. Wow!
Last Sunday coming home from church, we had the real live version. Passing by the lake, we stopped to photograph hundreds and hundreds of Tundra swans. Wow!
Monday, March 21, 2011
A fresh face on the farm (well, soon)
Ever since our Jersey Matilda lost a second quarter through the magic disappearing teat technique (it turned out the cartilage collapsed, by the way - irreversible), Don and I have discussed the idea of getting another Jersey cow.
But how to find one? Most mature cows we find for sale are culls. Matilda - much as I adore her - was a cull. Commercial dairy cows, I learned, only have a working life of four or five years. No dairy would sell a healthy young four-quartered cow, at least for anything short of a fortune.
We won't get rid of Matilda, of course. She makes beautiful calves and she's such a beloved member of the herd that she has a place on our farm for life.
But Don's been keeping an eye on Craig's List for Jerseys. We've called about a couple of animals, but either they were culls or they were too expensive.
So yesterday he called me over to his computer and showed me a new listing on Craig's List: a five-month-old Jersey heifer. The photos showed both her and her tiny udder (meaning, the sellers are cognizant about her milking potential). The price was reasonable. I immediately called and left a message and frankly didn't expect a call back - surely someone had snapped this little girl up already?
But no, the sellers returned the call a few hours later and said she was still available. All my questions were satisfactorily answered. Don and I decided to take a trip up and see her. Today.
In fact, we made a "date" of it. Don and I seldom have time together without kids along, so we left the kids at home (with a host of chores to do, poor things). It was going to be an all-day excursion because this nice homeschooling family lived on the other side of nowhere, a three-hour one-way drive.
It was a grey and rainy day. We had never traveled to the interior parts of the extreme northeast corner of Washington State before, so it was interesting to see the terrain. Once we escaped from the intensity of Spokane, the land alternated between flat open areas, steep mountains, and agricultural valleys. Yep, other side of nowhere.
We passed this drop-dead gorgeous farm on the way - I just had to take a snapshot - and it's for sale! (Too bad it was right on the road.) Anyone want a little piece of paradise in northeast Washington?
We arrived at last at the seller's farm and met our little girl. She was enchanting - healthy, leggy, good udder potential, sweet-natured, halter-broken.
Obviously the animals on this farm are well-cared for. We met the mother Jersey and while her udder wasn't quite as tight as I would have liked, it was nothing like the pendulous blob poor Matilda's udder has become. The calf's father was a high-quality A.I. (artificial insemination) bull. The nice thing about A.I. is you can choose the sire's qualities according to what you're breeding for - and can even select the gender of the calf. Amazing.
The only disadvantage we saw is the heifer hasn't been dehorned. At five months old, it's far too late to use dehorning paste, so we're faced with either the horrors of manual dehorning, or having a horned Jersey. We're not sure yet which route we'll take.
See her horn buds?
She has a very sweet disposition and, just like Matilda, wants to lick us (hence this unflattering shot of her tongue).
The bottom line is, we bought her. We paid about half down, got a receipt, and left for the long drive home, pausing first to admire the vistas from the seller's farm.
We'll probably pick the calf up next Monday. First we need to find someone's horse trailer we can borrow to bring her home, and we also need to make arrangements to stop at a vet's in Washington to get the necessary Bang's vaccination, health certificate, and brand inspection required by law to transport livestock over state lines.
On the drive home we passed some "Burma Shave"-style signs with the Ten Commandments posted by a church, which I thought was clever.
We haven't decided on a name yet, though Older Daughter suggested "Polly" which is growing on me. (I was looking for something old-fashioned, like Matilda's name.)
Oh, and the kids did all their chores too. The house looked lovely when we got home.
But how to find one? Most mature cows we find for sale are culls. Matilda - much as I adore her - was a cull. Commercial dairy cows, I learned, only have a working life of four or five years. No dairy would sell a healthy young four-quartered cow, at least for anything short of a fortune.
We won't get rid of Matilda, of course. She makes beautiful calves and she's such a beloved member of the herd that she has a place on our farm for life.
But Don's been keeping an eye on Craig's List for Jerseys. We've called about a couple of animals, but either they were culls or they were too expensive.
So yesterday he called me over to his computer and showed me a new listing on Craig's List: a five-month-old Jersey heifer. The photos showed both her and her tiny udder (meaning, the sellers are cognizant about her milking potential). The price was reasonable. I immediately called and left a message and frankly didn't expect a call back - surely someone had snapped this little girl up already?
But no, the sellers returned the call a few hours later and said she was still available. All my questions were satisfactorily answered. Don and I decided to take a trip up and see her. Today.
In fact, we made a "date" of it. Don and I seldom have time together without kids along, so we left the kids at home (with a host of chores to do, poor things). It was going to be an all-day excursion because this nice homeschooling family lived on the other side of nowhere, a three-hour one-way drive.
It was a grey and rainy day. We had never traveled to the interior parts of the extreme northeast corner of Washington State before, so it was interesting to see the terrain. Once we escaped from the intensity of Spokane, the land alternated between flat open areas, steep mountains, and agricultural valleys. Yep, other side of nowhere.
We passed this drop-dead gorgeous farm on the way - I just had to take a snapshot - and it's for sale! (Too bad it was right on the road.) Anyone want a little piece of paradise in northeast Washington?
We arrived at last at the seller's farm and met our little girl. She was enchanting - healthy, leggy, good udder potential, sweet-natured, halter-broken.
Obviously the animals on this farm are well-cared for. We met the mother Jersey and while her udder wasn't quite as tight as I would have liked, it was nothing like the pendulous blob poor Matilda's udder has become. The calf's father was a high-quality A.I. (artificial insemination) bull. The nice thing about A.I. is you can choose the sire's qualities according to what you're breeding for - and can even select the gender of the calf. Amazing.
The only disadvantage we saw is the heifer hasn't been dehorned. At five months old, it's far too late to use dehorning paste, so we're faced with either the horrors of manual dehorning, or having a horned Jersey. We're not sure yet which route we'll take.
See her horn buds?
She has a very sweet disposition and, just like Matilda, wants to lick us (hence this unflattering shot of her tongue).
The bottom line is, we bought her. We paid about half down, got a receipt, and left for the long drive home, pausing first to admire the vistas from the seller's farm.
We'll probably pick the calf up next Monday. First we need to find someone's horse trailer we can borrow to bring her home, and we also need to make arrangements to stop at a vet's in Washington to get the necessary Bang's vaccination, health certificate, and brand inspection required by law to transport livestock over state lines.
On the drive home we passed some "Burma Shave"-style signs with the Ten Commandments posted by a church, which I thought was clever.
We haven't decided on a name yet, though Older Daughter suggested "Polly" which is growing on me. (I was looking for something old-fashioned, like Matilda's name.)
Oh, and the kids did all their chores too. The house looked lovely when we got home.
Guest Post by Husband of the Boss: A Brief History Lesson
Howdy all.
I read a comment in the post recommending the book Self Evident Truth and felt that it deserved a detailed reply. The comment reads as follows:
Our library does not appear to have this book. I'll keep looking.
It sounds like it may be a bit slanted. During the enlightenment when our country was founded it was believed by many founding fathers that religion was on the way out (much like slavery -- and they were mistaken on both counts). The primary author of The Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson also coined the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," and edited his own personal version of the Bible (which would not be very highly regarded by most Christians).
In reading the writings of Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Paine, and James Madison, to name four, it becomes clear that they did not endorse many religious views.
I am not saying Mr. Gordon's book is wrong -- I haven't even read it. I will as soon as I can get my hands on a copy. I would merely suggest it may not be entirely balanced on it's own.
This brief comment certainly opens up a number of topics of conversation. While I respect this person's willingness to post his opinions on this subject, I'm sorry to say he is quite incorrect on a number of points; that is assuming that he doesn't have access to materials written about or by the founders that I haven't had the privilege of reading.
I'd like to discuss these points in order.
"...it was believed by many founding fathers that religion was on it's way out."
I find this conclusion would be very difficult to substantiate. Indeed, if all of those who signed the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution are combined with the non-signing Constitutional Convention delegates, and then added to all of the congressmen in the First Federal Congress, you will have a total of 204 "Founders" (discounting those that appear multiple times). These 204 Founders' self-declared religious affiliations come out as:
54.7% Episcopalian/Anglican
18.6% Presbyterian
16.8% Congregationalist
4.3% Quaker
3.7% Dutch Reformed
3.1% Lutheran
1.9% Catholic
1.9% Huguenot
1.9% Unitarian
1.3% Methodist
0.6% Calvinist
Now you might make the argument that those affiliations were a requirement of the time and a political necessity. And I'd have to agree that no one can really know someone else's relationship with God. But since all we can know for sure ARE these proclaimed affiliations and the words these men wrote, I must disagree with the commentator's contention. There is essentially no evidence that many (or even a significant minority) of the Founders thought that religion was “on its way out.” In fact, even the Declaration of Independence mentions or refers to God at least seven times.
Now as to the statement, "Thomas Jefferson coined the term 'wall of separation between the church and the state...'"
Well, as a believer in Christ, I must say that I'm quite glad that he did. Oh, not in the way that so many today misuse this statement, nor in the way that it is removed from the context in which it was said. No, I fully support Mr. Jefferson’s statement because of his original context.
President Jefferson wrote those words in a reply to a letter from the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and their complaint to the president concerned the RIGHT to worship as they desired, rather than their style of worship being a granted privilege by their State, or as they put it - as "favors granted." Jefferson was very careful in his reply; especially so because at that time the preeminent position of the Federal government over the powers of individual states was not yet enthroned. So, in writing to the Association, he could honestly address only the Federal role (or lack thereof) with regards to religious freedoms.
Jefferson wrote, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,; thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
He finished his letter with, "I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem."
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802
As the letter attests, Mr. Jefferson was a firm believer in the right of the free exercise of religion. In fact, he is famously quoted as saying, "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
So was Mr. Jefferson a believer?
Yes.
Again a quote: "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice can not sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference!"
So what did Jefferson mean by a wall of separation? Let's ask him.
"Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."
Mr. Jefferson was extremely concerned about the idea of a coercive State Religion, a concern I share. But he was never opposed to such things as prayer in school or the ten commandments carved on a stone at a county court house.
How do I know this?
In 1774, in the Virginia Assembly, Jefferson introduced a resolution calling for a Day of Fasting and Prayer.
In 1779, then Virginia Governor Jefferson decreed a day of “Public and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God.”
On March 4, 1805, President Jefferson offered “A National Prayer for Peace,” which petitioned:
“Almighty God, Who has given us this good land for our heritage; We humbly beseech Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Thy favor and glad to do Thy will. Bless our land with honorable ministry, sound learning, and pure manners.
Save us from violence, discord, and confusion, from pride and arrogance, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one united people the multitude brought hither out of many kindreds and tongues.
Endow with Thy spirit of wisdom those to whom in Thy Name we entrust the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and that through obedience to Thy law, we may show forth Thy praise among the nations of the earth.
In time of prosperity fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble, suffer not our trust in Thee to fail; all of which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.”
Now as to the statement: "...his own personal version of the Bible (which would not be very highly regarded by most Christians)..."
This no doubt refers to the so-called Jefferson Bible. I say so-called because Jefferson never called it that. His title for the work he created was "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth." It was never published in his lifetime. It was left to some later individual to call it "The Jeffersonian Bible."
Now I have a confession. I have done much the same as Mr. Jefferson. But fortunately I've been able to use a word processor and a less "destructive" method of cutting and pasting various translations of the words of Jesus of Nazareth. Why would I do this? I assume for the same reasons as Thomas Jefferson: to learn, to the best of my abilities, the thoughts and commandments of the Word of God.
Jefferson's "Bible," as it was referred to, was 46 pages long and dealt in its entirety with those portions of the New Testament that concerned Jesus. There is no doubt that Jefferson was a seeker. Well so am I. There are portions of the Bible I do not understand. There are things within its pages that I doubt. That lack of understanding and those doubts are mine. And like Jefferson, I believe those doubts and misunderstandings to be "a matter which lies solely between Man & his God." I will continue to search for answers to my questions just as Mr. Jefferson did. And ultimately, I'll ask God for greater illumination when I finally arrive Home. But like Jefferson, the words of the Savior are to me the most important portion of the Bible. And I constantly read them so as to gain greater insight. (One thing I've discovered is that Jesus has a tremendous sense of humor.)
Jefferson’s "Bible" was a study guide. He never used it as a replacement for the Bible. It was created as a learning tool for greater knowledge.
Finally the comment: "In reading the writings of Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Paine, and James Madison, to name four, it becomes clear that they did not endorse many religious views."
First off, why should they? None of them were preachers. They were lawyers, scientists, farmers, and revolutionists.
Second off, How do we know that they didn't? If the commenter is, like me, a product of the government schools, he probably wasn’t taught a lot of what these men said, especially with regards to religion.
But just a little research will demonstrate that they said enough. For example:
Ben Franklin: “The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”
And
“My dear friend, do not imagine that I am vain enough to ascribe our success [Revolution] to any superiority...If it had not been for the justice of our cause, and the consequent interposition of Providence, in which we had faith, we must have been ruined. If I had ever before been an atheist, I should now have been convinced of the being and government of a Deity!”
Thomas Paine: "I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life."
James Madison: "Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered."
And
“Believers who are in a state of grace, have need of the Word of God for their edification and building up therefore implies a possibility of falling."
And
“To neglect the means for our own preservation is to tempt God: and to trust to them is to neglect Him."
So as you can see, our Nation was created by men who believed strongly in “Divine Providence/”
And John Adams, another Founder on the list, said: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
I hope this helps the commenter in his continued study of both God's word and the founding of our great nation. There's a lot more to discover - always.
I read a comment in the post recommending the book Self Evident Truth and felt that it deserved a detailed reply. The comment reads as follows:
It sounds like it may be a bit slanted. During the enlightenment when our country was founded it was believed by many founding fathers that religion was on the way out (much like slavery -- and they were mistaken on both counts). The primary author of The Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson also coined the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," and edited his own personal version of the Bible (which would not be very highly regarded by most Christians).
In reading the writings of Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Paine, and James Madison, to name four, it becomes clear that they did not endorse many religious views.
I am not saying Mr. Gordon's book is wrong -- I haven't even read it. I will as soon as I can get my hands on a copy. I would merely suggest it may not be entirely balanced on it's own.
This brief comment certainly opens up a number of topics of conversation. While I respect this person's willingness to post his opinions on this subject, I'm sorry to say he is quite incorrect on a number of points; that is assuming that he doesn't have access to materials written about or by the founders that I haven't had the privilege of reading.
I'd like to discuss these points in order.
"...it was believed by many founding fathers that religion was on it's way out."
I find this conclusion would be very difficult to substantiate. Indeed, if all of those who signed the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution are combined with the non-signing Constitutional Convention delegates, and then added to all of the congressmen in the First Federal Congress, you will have a total of 204 "Founders" (discounting those that appear multiple times). These 204 Founders' self-declared religious affiliations come out as:
54.7% Episcopalian/Anglican
18.6% Presbyterian
16.8% Congregationalist
4.3% Quaker
3.7% Dutch Reformed
3.1% Lutheran
1.9% Catholic
1.9% Huguenot
1.9% Unitarian
1.3% Methodist
0.6% Calvinist
Now you might make the argument that those affiliations were a requirement of the time and a political necessity. And I'd have to agree that no one can really know someone else's relationship with God. But since all we can know for sure ARE these proclaimed affiliations and the words these men wrote, I must disagree with the commentator's contention. There is essentially no evidence that many (or even a significant minority) of the Founders thought that religion was “on its way out.” In fact, even the Declaration of Independence mentions or refers to God at least seven times.
Now as to the statement, "Thomas Jefferson coined the term 'wall of separation between the church and the state...'"
Well, as a believer in Christ, I must say that I'm quite glad that he did. Oh, not in the way that so many today misuse this statement, nor in the way that it is removed from the context in which it was said. No, I fully support Mr. Jefferson’s statement because of his original context.
President Jefferson wrote those words in a reply to a letter from the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and their complaint to the president concerned the RIGHT to worship as they desired, rather than their style of worship being a granted privilege by their State, or as they put it - as "favors granted." Jefferson was very careful in his reply; especially so because at that time the preeminent position of the Federal government over the powers of individual states was not yet enthroned. So, in writing to the Association, he could honestly address only the Federal role (or lack thereof) with regards to religious freedoms.
Jefferson wrote, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,; thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
He finished his letter with, "I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem."
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802
As the letter attests, Mr. Jefferson was a firm believer in the right of the free exercise of religion. In fact, he is famously quoted as saying, "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
So was Mr. Jefferson a believer?
Yes.
Again a quote: "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice can not sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference!"
So what did Jefferson mean by a wall of separation? Let's ask him.
"Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."
Mr. Jefferson was extremely concerned about the idea of a coercive State Religion, a concern I share. But he was never opposed to such things as prayer in school or the ten commandments carved on a stone at a county court house.
How do I know this?
In 1774, in the Virginia Assembly, Jefferson introduced a resolution calling for a Day of Fasting and Prayer.
In 1779, then Virginia Governor Jefferson decreed a day of “Public and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God.”
On March 4, 1805, President Jefferson offered “A National Prayer for Peace,” which petitioned:
“Almighty God, Who has given us this good land for our heritage; We humbly beseech Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Thy favor and glad to do Thy will. Bless our land with honorable ministry, sound learning, and pure manners.
Save us from violence, discord, and confusion, from pride and arrogance, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one united people the multitude brought hither out of many kindreds and tongues.
Endow with Thy spirit of wisdom those to whom in Thy Name we entrust the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and that through obedience to Thy law, we may show forth Thy praise among the nations of the earth.
In time of prosperity fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble, suffer not our trust in Thee to fail; all of which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.”
Now as to the statement: "...his own personal version of the Bible (which would not be very highly regarded by most Christians)..."
This no doubt refers to the so-called Jefferson Bible. I say so-called because Jefferson never called it that. His title for the work he created was "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth." It was never published in his lifetime. It was left to some later individual to call it "The Jeffersonian Bible."
Now I have a confession. I have done much the same as Mr. Jefferson. But fortunately I've been able to use a word processor and a less "destructive" method of cutting and pasting various translations of the words of Jesus of Nazareth. Why would I do this? I assume for the same reasons as Thomas Jefferson: to learn, to the best of my abilities, the thoughts and commandments of the Word of God.
Jefferson's "Bible," as it was referred to, was 46 pages long and dealt in its entirety with those portions of the New Testament that concerned Jesus. There is no doubt that Jefferson was a seeker. Well so am I. There are portions of the Bible I do not understand. There are things within its pages that I doubt. That lack of understanding and those doubts are mine. And like Jefferson, I believe those doubts and misunderstandings to be "a matter which lies solely between Man & his God." I will continue to search for answers to my questions just as Mr. Jefferson did. And ultimately, I'll ask God for greater illumination when I finally arrive Home. But like Jefferson, the words of the Savior are to me the most important portion of the Bible. And I constantly read them so as to gain greater insight. (One thing I've discovered is that Jesus has a tremendous sense of humor.)
Jefferson’s "Bible" was a study guide. He never used it as a replacement for the Bible. It was created as a learning tool for greater knowledge.
Finally the comment: "In reading the writings of Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Paine, and James Madison, to name four, it becomes clear that they did not endorse many religious views."
First off, why should they? None of them were preachers. They were lawyers, scientists, farmers, and revolutionists.
Second off, How do we know that they didn't? If the commenter is, like me, a product of the government schools, he probably wasn’t taught a lot of what these men said, especially with regards to religion.
But just a little research will demonstrate that they said enough. For example:
Ben Franklin: “The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”
And
“My dear friend, do not imagine that I am vain enough to ascribe our success [Revolution] to any superiority...If it had not been for the justice of our cause, and the consequent interposition of Providence, in which we had faith, we must have been ruined. If I had ever before been an atheist, I should now have been convinced of the being and government of a Deity!”
Thomas Paine: "I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life."
James Madison: "Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered."
And
“Believers who are in a state of grace, have need of the Word of God for their edification and building up therefore implies a possibility of falling."
And
“To neglect the means for our own preservation is to tempt God: and to trust to them is to neglect Him."
So as you can see, our Nation was created by men who believed strongly in “Divine Providence/”
And John Adams, another Founder on the list, said: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
I hope this helps the commenter in his continued study of both God's word and the founding of our great nation. There's a lot more to discover - always.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Random farm pix
Random pix of the beasties.
The neighbors put their horses in a different pasture, right next to our wooded side. All the horses were curious about the cows.
See? SEE??? Fences aren't prisons. Fences are mere suggestions. Pearly wanted to be on this side so she could be with her mama (Matilda) and took care of it herself.
Smokey thought about following but a good glare from me discouraged her. This time.
Yesterday morning we woke up to a brief winter wonderland. The snow melted off before noon.
I was taking some pictures of the chickens lounging in hay...
...when all of a sudden some turkeys started strutting through. One male...
...another male...
...and a female. "'Scuse us. Pardon us. Just passing through."
The neighbors put their horses in a different pasture, right next to our wooded side. All the horses were curious about the cows.
See? SEE??? Fences aren't prisons. Fences are mere suggestions. Pearly wanted to be on this side so she could be with her mama (Matilda) and took care of it herself.
Smokey thought about following but a good glare from me discouraged her. This time.
Yesterday morning we woke up to a brief winter wonderland. The snow melted off before noon.
I was taking some pictures of the chickens lounging in hay...
...when all of a sudden some turkeys started strutting through. One male...
...another male...
...and a female. "'Scuse us. Pardon us. Just passing through."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)