Formula lobbyists Toned Down Federal Breast-Feeding Ads

From today's Washington Post:
HHS Toned Down Breast-Feeding Ads - washingtonpost.com:

In an attempt to raise the nation's historically low rate of breast-feeding, federal health officials commissioned an attention-grabbing advertising campaign a few years ago to convince mothers that their babies faced real health risks if they did not breast-feed. It featured striking photos of insulin syringes and asthma inhalers topped with rubber nipples.

Plans to run these blunt ads infuriated the politically powerful infant formula industry, which hired a former chairman of the Republican National Committee and a former top regulatory official to lobby the Health and Human Services Department. Not long afterward, department political appointees toned down the campaign.

The ads ran instead with more friendly images of dandelions and cherry-topped ice cream scoops, to dramatize how breast-feeding could help avert respiratory problems and obesity. In a February 2004 letter, the lobbyists told then-HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson they were 'grateful' for his staff's intervention to stop health officials from 'scaring expectant mothers into breast-feeding,' and asked for help in scaling back more of the ads.

The best child development timeline

The best child development timeline I've yet to see online.

Children's Recommended Reading

A list of recommended children's books that I want to investigate.

No, you cannot spoil your baby!

Talaris Spotlight: Research Corner-August 2006:

despite the overwhelming evidence that babies can’t be spoiled, a national survey shows that many parents still subscribe to this parenting myth. According to this survey, 57% of parents of young children (aged 0 to 6), 64% of grandparents, and 62% of future parents believe that a six-month old infant is not too young to be spoiled. However, contrary to this pervasive parenting myth, child development research shows that responding to an infant’s needs actually helps to create children who are emotionally secure and independent.

Let your baby Cry It Out (CIO)?

Talaris Spotlight: Research Corner-July 2007:

In A Parenting Myth: Can I Spoil my Baby? [ANSWER: No, you cannot spoil your baby!] the importance of responding to an infant’s cries is explained. Consistent, warm and nurturing parental responses to an infant in the first year of life help infants develop a secure and loving bond with parents. These loving responses are critical to the young child’s emotional health, brain development and long term life outcomes, including success in school and life. The first months of an infant’s life can be exhausting for parents. Along with the joy of a new family member you may also be overwhelmed, stressed, and sleep-deprived. Sometimes you need to take a break from a crying infant and it is important to listen to your internal signals that tell you so. After you take a deep breath, remember that infants are too young to manage their own emotions and crying is her way of telling you that she needs something. This fact stirs concern and questions about using CIO: Are there harmful effects on children? And, are young children’s needs being met if parents use this method?
...
Is there scientific evidence that supports the use of this method?
Macall [Macall Gordon, who is an expert on CIO, at the Biennial Conference of the Society for Research and Child Development, who was hosting a panel of scientists on this very topic]: All the parenting advice that I have seen reports that research supports this method. But when I started looking at this research, I found that very few of these studies were actually conducted on infants. Only about half of them included infants under one year of age. Only two studies included infants under 6 months and no studies have been conducted on infants under 4 months. The studies that included infants also included a large number of much older children. In almost every case, the study reported results for the whole group and not by age. For instance, there was a study that included children between the ages of 9 and 60 months. The study concluded that 75% of this group resolved their night waking issues, but they didn’t say how many of the infants, how many of the toddlers, how many of the preschoolers, how many of the school age kids—they just reported results for the group as a whole. As a result, we really don’t know how the babies did.
...
Conclusion: While CIO may be one sleep method, there is very little research to support its use and science does not yet know how safe this method is or what its long term effects are. Science does tell us, though, about the importance of being responsive to a crying infant. Parents have a natural inner drive to respond to a crying infant. Follow what is in your heart and what you feel is right for you and your baby. When you look for parenting advice always be a critical consumer of the information you see or hear. Ask a lot of questions when visiting your child’s health care provider, when attending parenting groups, and when searching for information on the internet. Ask and search for the answer to this question: “Has science researched and supported this method?” Whatever sleep method you choose, make sure that it is safe and that you feel comfortable with it.

Also see: Sleep and Attachment

Universality of Parenting Behavior

Fascinating. I'm finding this reference to universally identified adult-child relationship patterns all over the place in my browsing.

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 11, Chapter 1:

essential parts of parenting behaviors towards infants are usually not cognitively controlled or intentionally performed (e.g. spontaneous raising of the voice to a higher pitch during 'baby talk', mimical mirroring, face - to - face distance regulation), they are regarded as expressions of a universal behavioral repertoire which is triggered by the presence of a baby. Although experiences with babies improve parenting, it is basically existent without explicit learning, since it is even displayed in children as young as 2 to 3 years, performed by both sexes and appears in virtually all investigated cultures. Nevertheless, substantial differences in prevalence and mode of parenting across cultures are obvious.

Let's provide a reason to stereotype this child

What value is there in knowing that your child is in the Xth percentile for height or weight or intelligence or such? For most things outside those issues that are clinically urgent to address is there any advantage in knowing that information? I'm tempted to ask our pediatrician to just leave me in the dark about that unless it's medically vital.

It's a real question, if anyone has an answer.

Most powerful component of secure attachment for a child

U of Minn Center for Early Education and Development, Early Report, Attachment and Bonding issue:

Studies about parent-infant relationships show that the most powerful component of a secure attachment is early, sensitive care for children, characterized by:
* recognition that even the youngest infant can signal her needs and wishes;
* accurate reading and interpretation of infant cues and signals;
* letting the child's signals, rather than the parents' needs or wishes, set the agenda;
* and consistency or predictability over time.
Of course no parent can or should jump at every little signal the baby gives; but the child's overall experience should be that her signals are effective in getting a response--that caregivers are available and willing to respond. In order to respond sensitively, a parent must understand the cues and signals of the child, be willing to respond, and have the emotional strength and social support necessary to sustain sensitivity over time.

This would make the whole "cry it out" method questionable in its long term benefits, it seems.

Key point to remember about child development

One of the things I need to remember while teaching and parenting Delilah is what age she actually becomes capable of understanding when her behavior is inappropriate. This is important because I see so many parents around me scold young children for activities that they don't yet understand are inappropriate (because they don't understand inappropriate behavior) instead of merely redirecting the activity and using it as a teaching moment. The answer is ahout two years old.

From page 28 of The importance of caregiver-child interactions for the survival and healthy development of young children.

One of the symbolic behaviours over which children gain mastery around this time, and which is also strongly related to the course and quality of their earlier relationships with caregivers, is their image of themselves in relation to others. Around their second birthday, children show increasing awareness of parental standards of good and bad conduct, a sense of their own competence when they do things well, and shame and embarrassment when they perceive that they have failed or not performed adequately [Kagan, 1982; Trevarthen, 1987b).

And let me be clear that I understand that pointing out the inappropriateness of an activity to a young child is part of what reinforces the feedback loop which allows the child to begin to understand the concept of inappropriate behavior. But when pointing out inappropriateness, the adult needs to understand that the pointing out or scolding, in and of itself, won't cause any cessation of inappropriate activity, nor should it developmentally.

I'm just stunned by such idiocy

Talking Points Memo:

From Rush Limbaugh's show a few days ago:
LIMBAUGH: Here's [caller] in Lake Orion, Michigan. Thank you for calling. Great to have you on the EIB Network.

CALLER: Hey, Rush. It's great to talk to you. I talked to you once before. I've been listening to you for a couple of years now, and I think I'm getting brighter, but there's a lot to be learned. I know I'm no expert in foreign affairs, but what really confuses me about the liberals is the hypocrisy when they talk about how we have no reason to be in Iraq and helping those people, but yet everybody wants us to go to Darfur. I mean, aren't we going to end up in a quagmire there? I mean, isn't it -- I don't understand. Can you enlighten me on this?

LIMBAUGH: Yeah. This is -- you're not going to believe this, but it's very simple. And the sooner you believe it, and the sooner you let this truth permeate the boundaries you have that tell you this is just simply not possible, the better you will understand Democrats in everything. You are right. They want to get us out of Iraq, but they can't wait to get us into Darfur.

CALLER: Right.

LIMBAUGH: There are two reasons. What color is the skin of the people in Darfur?

CALLER: Uh, yeah.

LIMBAUGH: It's black. And who do the Democrats really need to keep voting for them? If they lose a significant percentage of this voting bloc, they're in trouble.

CALLER: Yes. Yes. The black population.

LIMBAUGH: Right. So you go into Darfur and you go into South Africa, you get rid of the white government there. You put sanctions on them. You stand behind Nelson Mandela -- who was bankrolled by communists for a time, had the support of certain communist leaders. You go to Ethiopia. You do the same thing.

CALLER: It's just -- I can't believe it's really that simple.

My Two Ladies

 
 
 

Preparation for fatherhood

I won't use the resilience of human infants and toddlers to recover from injury, trauma, or neglect as a way of not actively (rather than reactively) seeking and choosing the best path of learning and interaction between my daughter and me.

When I was a nanny seven years ago, one of the reasons I pursued that option was to prepare for my journey into fatherhood; to examine my longterm interaction with a young child as a primary caregiver, to recognize my strengths and weaknesses, and to grow from that interaction. My interaction started with X at 1 1/2 years old, so it didn't include the current interactions I'm having with Delilah. What my particular strengths and weaknesses are I'm not diving into here, though perhaps in some future post.

I know the cliche is that babies don't come with manuals, and I can accept that from individual child to individual child. But, there is a common knowledge base out there regarding the psychology and development of the human infant and toddler which I feel is vital to have a rudimentary grasp of in order to make good parental choices in moment-to-moment interactions. As I've been searching through the body of knowledge available, I'm finding there is no lack of summary information regarding infant development and child/caregiver interactions from sociological, anthropological, and psychological perspectives. The key for me is in finding a source for that summary information that I trusted was as up-to-date as possible and as realistically neutral in point-of-view.

Given that, my first resource I'm going to for much of my gleaning of knowledge is the World Health Organization.

I've found this document very helpful so far: The importance of caregiver-child interactions for the survival and healthy development of young children.

One of the important points I've found so far is how vital non-distracted interaction with an infant really is, how integral social feedback loops are to development on all fronts in the youngest of infants. An interesting illustration of this is:

Experiments that disrupt or distort caregiver-child interaction produce dismay and distress in both the caregiver and the infant. One such experimental perturbation involves asking the caregiver to stop talking and to look at her child in an expressionless way, called the “still face” condition (Cohn & Tronick, 1989; Field, 1977; Tronick et al., 1978). Another, using closed circuit video technology, has the child or the caregiver interact with relayed filmed images of their partner from a previous session, producing an unsynchronised and non-contingent interaction that resists repair and adaptation.
Under these conditions, when the infant’s expectations for rhythmic, reciprocal interaction are violated, she becomes visibly concerned. The infant’s movements become jerky and uncoordinated, and she attempts to draw the caregiver into interaction. When repeated attempts to do so fail, the infant withdraws, averts her face, and shows signs of distress such as selfstimulation, yawning and sleepiness, and fretfulness. The infant is initially puzzled when the caregiver resumes their regular interactional style, but the partners soon pick up their interactional tempo (Brazelton et al., 1975).
Behaviour during perturbation experiments indicates that infants only a few months old are extremely sensitive to the caregiver’s responsiveness, and that babies expect a particular kind of contingent human interaction. In these short exchanges, infants behave in ways that are reminiscent of the behaviour of the toddler in James Robertson’s film, passing through phases of distress, despair and detachment. While these brief experimental demonstrations are quickly repaired, they illustrate the likely response of infants to repeated or enduring experiences of these kinds. These disturbances probably play a part in the development of insecure attachments and in the response of infants and small children to depressed caregivers.

It's findings like that which emphasize to me how I want to carefully monitor my use of swings, playpens, vibrating chairs, and other equipment that could be used as static (as opposed to dynamic) enclosures for a child such that I continue to provide social feedback even when my daughter is in such an enclosure.

Newborn skills

Even in her oh-so-early infancy, having had my new daughter for only six days, she is making me reexamine so many things I thought I knew... hell, that I had been taught in college.

Over the last 25 or so years (16 of those after I graduated college) experimental psychologists have been researching newborns. The experiments that had happened before that, though lauded and the results accepted into the general populations thoughts toward infants, were rudimentary and mainly false.

The classic example that keeps illustrating to me how so little of the newborn psychology I was taught in college is still valid regards object permanence. I had been taught (and, to be fair, psychologists believed) that an infant didn't remember the existence of an item when it was removed from her field of sight until eight or nine months old. More recent experiments that have moved out of the behavioral field and into experimental (i.e. measuring heart rate and tracking eye movements and such) have brought this down to three months old.

But the differences in what I thought a newborn understands and what they really do are staggering.

-newborns just a few hours old are able to recognize their mother's voice
-newborns listen attentively as long as mother reads forward, but will stop listening as soon as she reads backward
-newborns can tell the difference between a smiling face and a frowning face (whether or not they know what it means)

and more... but now my daughter needs my attention.

infant psychology

Against cosleeping? - I don't buy this campaign by crib manufacturers

I have to say that after reviewing analysis of the studies that are out there (in as layman a way as I must), I can't help but conclude that intelligent bedsharing with an infant is just as safe and probably safer than crib sleeping. When crib manufacturers are cosponsors of a health campaign disavowing infants sleeping next to their natural mother (like most other humans and all other mammals on earth), color me skeptical.

How the Stats Really Stack Up: Cosleeping Is Twice As Safe - this is the real kicker
Why babies should never sleep alone: A review of the co-sleeping controversy in relation to SIDS, bedsharing and breast feeding - a bit more academic, but published in PAEDIATRIC RESPIRATORY REVIEWS (2005)
The Changing Concept of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: Diagnostic Coding Shifts, Controversies Regarding the Sleeping Environment, and New Variables to Consider in Reducing Risk - policy statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics

-------------

With the generous support of the National Institutes of Child and Human Development, Drs. Sarah Mosko, Christopher Richards and I are presently exploring the effects of mother-infant pairs sleeping apart and together over successive nights in a sleep laboratory. Our studies show that while co-sleeping, infants breastfeed more frequently and for longer total duration; they have more arousals, many of which are induced by the mother's movements or sounds, and that the infants spend less time in the deep stage of sleep from which some infants have difficulty arousing (apnea). We have been impressed with both the mother's and infant's acute responsiveness to the other's activities, all of which seem to change the infant's physiology in ways that look potentially helpful in resisting a SIDS event, although we cannot prove this at this time.

-----------

You can also be reassured by overnight video studies of co-sleeping mothers and babies, which show that co-sleeping mothers, even in deep sleep, are aware of their baby's position, and move when necessary to avoid over-laying. At no time in these studies did co-sleeping mothers impede the breathing of their babies, who had higher average oxygen levels than solitary sleeping babies. Co-sleeping mothers and babies will almost always sleep facing each other, with the baby lying on the side or back. This is much safer for the baby than lying on the front, which increases the risks of SIDS. This information is summarised by James McKenna, who conducted these sleep-lab studies, at www.naturalchild.com /james_mckenna/, and also see his lovely article for Mothering Breastfeeding & Bedsharing Still Useful (and Important) After All These Years

------------

A conflict of interest? Who is behind this new national campaign to warn parents not to sleep with their babies? In addition to the USCPSC, the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA) is co-sponsoring this campaign. The JPMA? An association of crib manufacturers. This is a huge conflict of interest. Actually, this campaign is exactly in the interest of the JPMA.

-----------

The Alaska Division of Public Health and the Alaska Chapter of the AAP continue to recommend that (1) parents always put their infants to sleep on their back unless told otherwise by a medical provider, (2) infants never sleep on a water bed or couch, and (3) infants sleep in an infant crib or with a nonsmoking, unimpaired caregiver on a standard adult non–water mattress. Among parents who do not use tobacco, alcohol, or other drugs, sleeping with their infant is a perfectly reasonable and potentially beneficial option. We call on the AAP to revise their recommendations to reflect the scientifically defensible position that bed sharing is only a risk if the parent is impaired or the sleeping surface is inappropriate.

-----------

Thus, we [The Section on Breastfeeding of the American Academy of Pediatrics] are of the opinion that the Task Force on Sudden Infant Death Syndrome should have given greater emphasis to positive protective prescriptive recommendations such as universal supine sleeping position,6 reduction of maternal smoking and use of other illicit or harmful substances, proper proximate sleeping arrangements, bedding, and infant clothing, and, most importantly, exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months of the infant's life and its continuation for ≥1 year.7 Unfortunately, the media's response to the task force's statement has focused on the 2 controversial and problematic recommendations regarding pacifier use and bed sharing, diverting the public's attention from the task force's otherwise positive recommendations.

unrelated but interesting from that:

Of particular concern are the data from one of the studies cited by the task force that habitual pacifier use or dependence may actually increase the risk of SIDS if the pacifier is not used at the time of the last sleep (increased incidence of SIDS [odds ratio: 1.95]).4 Thus, habitual pacifier use may, paradoxically, increase risk for SIDS if the mother fails to insert a pacifier at sleep time. Furthermore, careful review of the cited pacifier and SIDS data also indicates that no distinction was made between those infants who were breastfed and those who were not, precluding any conclusion as to the value of pacifier use in the breastfeeding infant.5

------------

[Massachusetts Breastfeeding Coalition] The cosleeping recommendations2 are flawed also, often not controlling for sleep surface or breastfeeding, and were all case-control studies, with their attendant flaws.

It is disturbing that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) can publish the recommendations of a 5-person task force without consulting the much larger Section on Breastfeeding, a section that has no financial conflicts of interest.

It is unclear if any of the recommendations will decrease SIDS more than safe bed-sharing practices combined with exclusive breastfeeding (without pacifiers). The data cited are simply not convincing.
...
The AAP's credibility is eroding already, with heavy donations from the formula industry, selling the rights to the AAP breastfeeding book to Ross, and now these recommendations and the way their publication was handled. The publication of these SIDS articles shows a serious lack of rigorous scientific oversight. The articles, as a whole, may be valuable, but the recommendations drawn from them are seriously flawed.

In issuing the recommendations, you postulate a physiologic explanation. Yet, there is an explanation that may explain why some data link breastfeeding with lower SIDS rates: formula-fed infants are known to be less arousable. This itself may stem from possible differences in brain maturation in some formula-fed infants, the difficulty in digesting formula that may cause infants to sleep more deeply (just like an adult who gets sleepy after a heavy meal), and the fact that formula-fed infants sleep longer because they are not awakened frequently for suckling and feeding. Infants who do not cosleep are less arousable because they do not have the stimulation of their mother nearby. I predict that the data linking safe bed sharing and exclusive breastfeeding to lower rates of SIDS will strengthen over time.

----------

We [group of doctors in the field of pediatric sleep medicine] agree that the data regarding the risks of bed sharing as a form of cosleeping in specific high-risks groups (eg, parents who smoke, consume alcohol, or use sedating medications) or in certain circumstances (eg, couch sharing) are compelling; however, the evidence that the practice of bed sharing universally poses a risk to infants is not. There also were no data presented in the policy statement supporting the assumption that the combination of using pacifiers and sleeping separately from the infant in the same room will reduce the incidence of SIDS, nor was there any discussion of whether alternative strategies (eg, use of a monitoring device for infants sleeping in separate rooms) might be equally effective. A policy that requires thousands of families to modify their traditional sleeping and parenting practices, which in turn are based on deep-rooted cultural values and beliefs, would seem to require overwhelming evidence of risk associated with those practices.

Delilah on her own

 

 

 

 

Delilah and her Mom

 

 

Delilah and her Papa

 

 

Delilah Jack James

My daughter was:
Born 3:51am 8/17/2007
3530g - 7 lb, 12.5 oz
21 in. long
the cutest thing in the world

Delilah Jack James

My daughter was:
Born 3:51am 8/17/2007
3530g - 7 lb, 12.5 oz
21 in. long
the cutest thing in the world

I'm so deeply disturbed by this overly religious nation I was born into

From a Christian news service, One News Now. The first blocked quote is the news article. Everything that follows are the comments. Our President holds these people as his core voters. My only solace in this, and it's not much is that 46% of Idahoans seem to dislike or despise him.

Last month, the U.S. Senate was opened for the first time ever with a Hindu prayer. Although the event generated little outrage on Capitol Hill, Representative Bill Sali (R-Idaho) is one member of Congress who believes the prayer should have never been allowed.

"We have not only a Hindu prayer being offered in the Senate, we have a Muslim member of the House of Representatives now, Keith Ellison from Minnesota. Those are changes -- and they are not what was envisioned by the Founding Fathers," asserts Sali.

Sali says America was built on Christian principles that were derived from scripture. He also says the only way the United States has been allowed to exist in a world that is so hostile to Christian principles is through "the protective hand of God."

"You know, the Lord can cause the rain to fall on the just and the unjust alike," says the Idaho Republican.

According to Congressman Sali, the only way the U.S. can continue to survive is under that protective hand of God. He states when a Hindu prayer is offered, "that's a different god" and that it "creates problems for the longevity of this country."
All Original Content Copyright 2006-2007 American Family News Network - All Rights Reserved

Chris:

So Sali wants to institute a religious test for eligibility to serve in Congress? Talk about unconstitutional! That rumbling sound you hear is the founders rolling over in their graves.

Posted by Chris | August 8, 2007 7:15 AM

Posted on August 8, 2007 07:15
Sandy Lane:

I share Senator Sali's concerns. I don't believe this country's very existence depends on a return to our Biblical foundations. If we fail to do so, what kind of world will our grandchildren have? I have five beautiful girls and shudder to think what could be (unless Jesus chooses to return very soon)

Posted by Sandy Lane | August 8, 2007 7:24 AM

Posted on August 8, 2007 07:24
Donna Parry:


Amen to that. Between that trend and our helping give away Israel's rightful land we should stop and think about the consequences of ignoring God's word.

Posted by Donna Parry | August 8, 2007 8:14 AM

Posted on August 8, 2007 08:14
Pastor Dan Stockbarger:

AMEN!

Posted by Pastor Dan Stockbarger | August 8, 2007 8:46 AM

Posted on August 8, 2007 08:46
George Bevenner:

The Muslim in congress was fairly elected to serve his position. We should not deny him that right solely because of his religion! Name one thing he has done to hurt/endanger Americans, and I will listen.

Posted by George Bevenner | August 8, 2007 9:04 AM

Posted on August 8, 2007 09:04
Jeffrey Seleb:

That is ridiculous. To suggest that we the United States are somehow held above the rest of the world's citizens is immature and ignorant. That somehow our "creator" if there is one, holds us in greater esteem is nonsense. It is why the United States is depicted by the rest of the world as being arrogant and pushy. This is not how I view myself or want to be viewed as an American.

Posted by Jeffrey Seleb | August 8, 2007 9:47 AM

Posted on August 8, 2007 09:47
Craig Meglasson:

Praise the Lord Jesus Christ, for giving someone the backbone to speak the truth. Thank you, and bless you Bill Sali!

Posted by Craig Meglasson | August 8, 2007 9:53 AM

Posted on August 8, 2007 09:53
John Santos:

More people need to speak up like Congressman Sali. God Bless you Mr Sali. Let's all stop worrying about the political correct police. Do not allow others to silence us. Silence is a form of acceptance. Others must tolerate Christian values as I am being forced to tolerate everything under the sun. Remember we need to acknowledge and respect others not accept their beliefs. Jewish prophets were sent to the lion's den or put in burning furnaces for not accepting other people's gods. Jesus said the "world would hate us since we stand up for the truth" Do not worry about being "liked" and being considered tolerant by others. We only have one Judge in the end and it's not the liberals, political correct police nor a bunch of false gods.

Posted by John Santos | August 8, 2007 10:04 AM

Posted on August 8, 2007 10:04
Josh:

Although I am Jewish I agree with the representatives. Praying to false G-Ds is a big deal and could bring harsh decrees from above.

Posted by Josh | August 8, 2007 10:13 AM

Posted on August 8, 2007 10:13
Bob:

America was founded on the idea of freedom of religion! Although the Founding Fathers were predominantly Christian and even those who were not supported Christian worldviews they did not create America as a Theocracy! The idea that the Founding Fathers would oppose a Congressman who was a Muslim, Hindu, or any other religion is a giant leap and unfounded.

Posted by Bob | August 8, 2007 10:21 AM

Posted on August 8, 2007 10:21
Mary Rentz:

Praise the Lord for Representatives like Bill Sali. Come on Christians, start calling, writing and e-mailing our outrage.

Mary Rentz

Posted by Mary Rentz | August 8, 2007 10:24 AM

Posted on August 8, 2007 10:24
Shana:

That is awesome. It's about time that some people in federal office recognize that without God's hand on us, we are not going to survive as we have. WAY TO GO CONGRESSMAN SALI.

Posted by Shana | August 8, 2007 11:36 AM

Posted on August 8, 2007 11:36
Birt Simpson:

Like so many other things that could be so easily fixed if americans would just quit whining and just be an active CITIZEN. WHE HAVE COUNTLESS GROUPS IN THIS COUNTRY CRYING FOR CHANGE. WE AS CITIZENS SEEM TO HAVE FORGOTTEN THAT OUR ELECTED LEADERS WORK FOR US. WE DON'T WORK FOR THEM. THE CITIZENS ARE THE ONES THAT HAVE LET THE 1% GROUPS TELL ALL THE OTHERS WHAT TO DO. IN THIS DAY OF INSTANT COMMUNICATION CELL PHONES, E-MAIL, FAXESAND EVEN 28 CENT POST OFFICE POST CARD. THERE SHOUND BE NO REASON FOR THIS KIND OF GARBAGE TO OCCUR.

Posted by Birt Simpson | August 8, 2007 11:39 AM

Posted on August 8, 2007 11:39
Charles Green:

Way to go Sali. Now if the senate would just listen to you and realize that there is one God and One mediator between God and men the man Christ Jesus. 1 tim 2:5. The government thinks peace will come thru compromising and excepting all religions as right but the bible says wehn they say 1Th 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
GOD HELP US!

Posted by Charles Green | August 8, 2007 12:35 PM

Posted on August 8, 2007 12:35
Alonzo:

I don't see what the issue is here. Americans voted to have a Muslim in congress.

As for the prayer - this just more proof that church & state should be separate the way our founding fathers wanted it.

Posted by Alonzo | August 8, 2007 12:39 PM

Posted on August 8, 2007 12:39
Psalm:

Amen!

The children of darkness will no doubt rant and rage against these true words...

May Congressman Sali be blessed in Christ Jesus.

Posted by Psalm | August 8, 2007 1:18 PM

Posted on August 8, 2007 13:18
Rachel:

I agree with Congressman Sali. Having a Muslim in office and a Hindu open Senate prayer shows just how far the people of America have fallen from the priciples of God's Word. Freedom of religion was to be able to worship the true God of heaven without the interference of government telling us how to. It was so we could worship the ONE true God, the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, and not the god of Ishmael, as Islam holds to, or one of the many gods of the Hindus. Yes, we are in the end times and the fight is between light and darkness, right and wrong, God and the devil. Those who choose God are on the winning side and will have the ultimate victory! Praise God!

Posted by Rachel | August 8, 2007 1:28 PM

Posted on August 8, 2007 13:28
Doris:

Thank you, Congressman Sali!

Posted by Doris | August 8, 2007 1:36 PM

Posted on August 8, 2007 13:36
Andrew B:

If we start ruling with a religious "test" for anything involving government (i.e.- ensuring that only Christians can serve in government) then that precedent will one day mean that non-Christians can prevent Christians from serving in governemtn. Don;t you see how we do not want government to implement our religious wishes? If we do, then that floodgate can never be closed and we will regret it. Our founding fathers came here to avoid religious persecution and to be able to practice their faith freely. How can we step on their wishes?

Posted by Andrew B | August 8, 2007 2:14 PM

Posted on August 8, 2007 14:14
Mr & Mrs Robert Haley:

Thank you Senator Sali!! I was so upset over this that I called my senators & asked them to not show up until this "prayer" was over. Hinduism only has thousands of Gods. Which one did he pray to? And how would we know if he was praying even to Satan? America is going down the tubes at a mighty fast pace. I have never called my senators before or written a comment before now. This was too much to just pass over. "Come, Lord Jesus, Come"

Posted by Mr & Mrs Robert Haley | August 8, 2007 2:25 PM

Posted on August 8, 2007 14:25
Beverly:

It is a very sad day just to read the responses posted on this website. Our founding fathers were not all Christian but they were basing our laws and governments on the BIBLE. Whether people want to admit that or not it is the truth. The simple fact is the people who wrote that it doesn't matter that a Hindu prayer was given or a Muslim representative is making decisions in our government needs to read about the history of Israel. Israel was judged everytime they strayed from God and His word. Any Jewish or Christian person can understand the importance of keeping God (Yahweh) as the Commander and Chief of our country. To all of you who do not see this importance I am sad for you. God help our country and the liberal views that are taking over. "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord" Psalm 33:12

Posted by Beverly | August 8, 2007 2:39 PM

Posted on August 8, 2007 14:39
Michael Raab:

Thank you, Congressman Sali. Your stand encourages me to pray more for our elected officials as 1 Timothy 2 instructs us to do.
'Religion' or not, the one true God is the One who rules over the affairs of the world. Whether one belives that or not does not change the FACT. Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Amen.

Posted by Michael Raab | August 8, 2007 3:21 PM

Posted on August 8, 2007 15:21
Char:

Amen Congressman Sali! It is only by God's grace that America is as great a country as it is. It's too bad that everyone can't see that. Thank you for your courage and conviction. Keep up the good work.

Posted by Char | August 8, 2007 3:52 PM

Posted on August 8, 2007 15:52
Gary Barnett:

My congratulations to the congressman. We are electing people from the very cult that has one goal in mind which is to kill us. They can call themselves "religion of peace", but it is only because they are thankfully in the minority. Look at the country's around the world where they are dominant, and look at what they are doing to Christians. Convert or die is their stand. What a great "religion" where they seek converts by the sword. Freedom of religion is DEFINITELY not to be found in Islam. Look up the history of this cult, and how they got their converts. We live in a GREAT Country where are founding fathers gave everything to provide us this great country. Now we have the so called elites who tell us we should be more inclusive, and that is why the rest of the world hates us. I sure have not seen a lot of people moving out of the U.S., but I sure see a lot of people trying to get in. Must be something good about the U.S.? If the "religion of peace" doesn't like it here, then they can go back to where they came from.
As I recall they are currently plotting in their caves to attack the U.S. and our interests around the world? Yes Sir, we need to be more tolerant of them!!! NOT.

Posted by Gary Barnett | August 8, 2007 4:04 PM

Posted on August 8, 2007 16:04
Charles Thomas:

Thank you congressman Sali,and pray that more of our country leaders would follow suit and take a stang for our Christian founding.To you Mr.Bevenner just give him time he will.and Mr.Seleb you need to go read the true history of this nation.Our forfathers were God loving and God fearing men and put their faith and trust soly in Him that is why we are a great and powerful nation.Because of the Almighty's blessing's on us.

Posted by Charles Thomas | August 8, 2007 4:12 PM

Posted on August 8, 2007 16:12
Daniel Halkyard:

I agree that a prayer to God our Father should always open the Senate and the House, nothing else is acceptible. It's bad enough they have taken Him out of our public schools...but that being said....
Are we not missing an opportunity as Christians here? Did not Jesus die for all of us? Muslims too? What about the Great Commission to go out and teach to all the nations (people) in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? Instead of griping here we shoud be finding a way to witness to this Muslim...after all, wouldn't that be what Jesus would want us to do?

God Bless

Posted by Daniel Halkyard | August 8, 2007 4:19 PM

Posted on August 8, 2007 16:19
B:

I believe G-d did work in the founding of America, which was founded on the Bible. We are told in the Bible to put in G-dly judges. I believe He did have a hedge of protection around our country that we systematically have torn down. We no longer seek to serve Him. We tore down His hedge of protection and threw Him out of our government, schools, and public life.
I do not think Americans are anything special. ANYBODY who will call on the name of the Lord may be saved. He wants to draw you to Himself like a mother hen does to her chicks. He wants to protect You! When America proclaimed and worked in friendship with G-d, why would He not defend her? When any country hates Him and seeks the destruction of those who seek Him, can He not choose whether to accept their declaration of war or to reach out in love?
We cannot even begin to imagine the betrayal and disappointment He must feel that those He loves and cares for, attack Him and call out to other "gods", especially as He knows the trouble our choices will bring us. May we repent and call on His name once again.

Posted by B | August 8, 2007 4:19 PM

Posted on August 8, 2007 16:19
Cynthia Brown:

Amen to Congressman Sali's valid statements. I wrong Senators McConnell and Bunning. I received a terse statement from Senator Bunning regarding the issue but he didn't say he felt it was wrong. Senator McConnell has been silent. The man was asked by Harry Reid to say the prayer. I emailed Mr. Reid also and have received nothing. We are in mortal danger of losing are country unless we Humble Ourselves and Pray. Why doesn't Congressman Sali run for President? We need politicians like him. Also, 95% of the Founding Fathers were Christian and wanted the United States to remain a Christian country. Thank you, Cindy

Posted by Cynthia Brown | August 8, 2007 4:20 PM

Posted on August 8, 2007 16:20
R. V. :

I doubt very much that our "founding fathers", as enlightened as they were, thought much about religions other than various branches of Christianity or angnosticism when they were framing the constitution, or bill of rights.
Muslims who want to exterminate all who oppose their supposed Allah probably didn't come to mind. If such had, I suppose they would have proposed no immigration of peoples who wanted to kill people of different beliefs. Perhaps we should amend the constitution to correct their ommission.

Posted by R. V. | August 8, 2007 4:22 PM

Posted on August 8, 2007 16:22
Jason Layne:

Someone in congress finally spoke some truth!

Posted by Jason Layne | August 8, 2007 4:23 PM

Posted on August 8, 2007 16:23
Amber:

Amen to Sali! Our Founding Fathers "Wanted" seperation of Church and state, I say "Do your homework!" Our Founding Fathers NEVER said that. That comment was taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. Now as to having a Muslim in Congress, in my opinion, Not the best idea, however he was elected fairly. If our citizens were doing what they should be, praying and getting involved that would NOT have happened. God says to "Have no other God's before me". We will reap what we sow. If we disobey God and have other God's set up as Equal to Him he will judge us based on that and the consequences will be based on that and fair! We were founded as a Christians nation. To those who say no we weren't again I say DO YOUR HOMEWORK and as Josh McDowel days "Don't check your brains at the door". Nearly every founding father was a Christian, many were pastors, or started seminaries and on and on it goes. Go to ORIGINAL source documents DONT take my word for it. Hey READ the constitution for pity sake! Folks we have been lied to and deceived over and over by media and our professors in our Colleges for years. STUDY for yourselves PLEASE! "Study to show yourselves approved. A workman that needeth not to be ashamed!" (sorry can't remember the biblical reference number here)
It is ok to write out the whole word GOD!!!! None of us will fault you for it!
Blessings to all!
Amber

Posted by Amber | August 8, 2007 4:27 PM

Posted on August 8, 2007 16:27
Bernadine Shettle:

Bravo! Congressman Sali for your courage. Know that many share your opinion, People of this country need to be educated about various religions to make educated choices. Individuals of various religion of and by themselves do not pose a problem. They should not be in positions of authority in our government as their religious beliefs run counter to the Christian theology and are truly harmful to our freedoms.

Posted by Bernadine Shettle | August 8, 2007 4:31 PM

Posted on August 8, 2007 16:31
Joel Hollis:

The one thing that will destroy this great country of ours is apathy from Christians. Why do Christians think it is unChristian to speak out? I tell you this, if the Christian does not speak out, if the Christian does not speak his or her mind while we still can, you can forget about the constitution. It will be thrown out the window. It is a fact that the people now serving in Congress don't have the backbone of a dish rag! They will sell out their very soul to the highest dollar just to stay there or be re-elected. If you doubt what I am saying, pay attention to what they say. They say what ever the crowd they are addressing wants to hear. Who is it that makes the most noise? It's the homosexual agenda, the ACLU, anyone that is against Christian principles in government. Do you honestly think a muslim can be a good American? Who does he answer to? It is certainly not to our God!

Posted by Joel Hollis | August 8, 2007 4:38 PM

Posted on August 8, 2007 16:38
Tony Altamore:

The political correctness of the current freeloaders in DC are what is causing Most of the problems here. A hindu prayer is so wrong I'm sure our founding fathers are more than appaled. Having a muslim in congress is not something I agree with, however, someones religion should not be an issue unless it interferes with fulfilling the full duties of a congressman. Unfortunately; ANY religion that preaches hate and death has no place in a Judeo/Christian based government that preaches tolerance and peace.
Since there is no such thing as a muslim who respects everyone else I feel this gentleman should either give up his false prophet and adopt a real religion or he should resign from congress.

Posted by Tony Altamore | August 8, 2007 4:46 PM

Posted on August 8, 2007 16:46
Education needed here:

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
-John Jay, 1st Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”
-Patrick Henry, May 1765, Speech to the House of Burgesses

“And whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions, in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.”
– Abraham Lincoln

“Let us look forward to the time when we can take the flag of our country and nail it below the Cross, and there let it wave as it waved in the olden times, and let us gather around it and inscribed for our motto: ‘Liberty and Union, one and inseparable, now and forever,’ and exclaim, ‘Christ first, our country next!’ ”
– Andrew Johnson

“We cannot read the history of our rise and development as a nation, without reckoning with the place the Bible has occupied in shaping the advances of the Republic. Where we have been the truest and most consistent in obeying its precepts, we have attained the greatest measure of contentment and prosperity.”
– Franklin Roosevelt

“Without God, there is no virtue, because there’s no prompting of the conscience. Without God, we’re mired in the material, that flat world that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God, there is a coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.”
– Ronald Reagan

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.”
–Thomas Jefferson

"Do not let any one claim to be a true American if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics." George Washington

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
-John Adams, October 11, 1798

“…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 the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1781

“It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protections and favor.”
-George Washington, October 3, 1789

“…except the Bible there is not a true history in the world.”
-John Jay, February 28, 1797 (First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court & Signer of the U.S. Constitution)

“There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations…”
-Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

“Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!”
-Abraham Lincoln, March 30, 1863

Posted by Education needed here | August 8, 2007 5:02 PM

Posted on August 8, 2007 17:02
Judy:

Thank God there are some people running the Country who have their heads on straight!
Our Country has absolutely been blessed because of the Christianity here. To unbelievers who have not studied the Bible and history, they, of course will think this is asinine! But it is very, very true.
To our forefathers, the separation of Church and State, had nothing at all to do with the definition that is being crammed down our throats today.
They came here from England to start a Church, separate from the Government, where they could worship in peace without the interference of the Government. In early Americana, the Bible was taught right along with the 3 Rs in our schools.
Yes, this Country has been blessed, but who knows how long it will last, if there isn't a big turn-around in society? God's Rules and Laws were the same yesterday as they are today, and as they will be tomorrow. They don't change with each generation. If that were so, then God would have provided each generation with a brand new Bible! It was a one time thing. Only people change, and turn away from God. And he will not be mocked forever.
It is a disgrace and blasphenous to have a hindu open the Senate with a prayer. Why is this Country humoring a false religion? Pretending to go along with it like it is credible. Shame on us!

Posted by Judy | August 8, 2007 5:12 PM

Posted on August 8, 2007 17:12
Sid Sides:

America has it wrong when she asks "GOD BLESS AMERICA". Properly it should be "AMERICA, BLESS GOD!" Then watch God bless this land!

Posted by Sid Sides | August 8, 2007 5:17 PM

Posted on August 8, 2007 17:17
Gwen:

When surveyed, more than 25% of Muslims, in America, said they believed it was right to kill non-Muslims. That is in America! Why is are government not seeing this as a threat to our National security!!! Instead, these people are being elected to national offices. Do people not see what has happened in Europe? That is what America has to look forward to if we don't do something. I agree with the parent of the five daughters. I don't want that for my girls either. Congressman Sali is right on. We have got to do something! When I called my senator's office expressing my outrage over the Hindu prayer in the Senate, the office clerk laughed at me on the phone and then proceeded to tell me that our government was not founded on the Bible or Christian principles. Something is very wrong here!

Posted by Gwen | August 8, 2007 5:23 PM

Posted on August 8, 2007 17:23
pete panos:

I dont have a problem with someone elected to an office that is muslum, hindu, orthodox or whatever, the problem I have is that to open congress with a muslum prayer bothers me in that this is the US. It has gotten frustrating that I have to be politically correct and respect other faiths, but my faith gets knocked if i stand up for it!!!

Posted by pete panos | August 8, 2007 5:29 PM

Posted on August 8, 2007 17:29
Timothy Morgan:

I keep hearing that the Christians are supposed to be tolerant and peaceful. Have you ever heard the name Jesus? He was not tolerant of 'strange gods' and false religions. The Bible strongly holds the position that other gods were to be put down, their idols destroyed, shame on us for even letting anyone be involved in our Government in any fashion, who denies the Lordship of Jesus Christ, tolerance is not a Bible word, and it surely is not a Jehovah God word. It may belong in some religions but not Christianity. We are not to tolerate other gods! Why isn't this concept clear to all christians?

Posted by Timothy Morgan | August 8, 2007 5:36 PM

Posted on August 8, 2007 17:36
John Burcham:

If you don't believe this is wrong,check your history books or your Bible,every nation that has turned it's back on GOD has been destroyed!!!!!! Every Christian needs to stand upon the word of GOD, to stop things like this from happening. Rember these things when you go to VOTE!!!

Posted by John Burcham | August 8, 2007 6:04 PM

Posted on August 8, 2007 18:04
Paul Pyle:

Thank you Mr. Sali for saying what most are thinking. Our motto is "In God We Trust" not 'many gods' (Hindu) and not the god of Islam, but the one True God. The God that our founding fathers prayed to and the One they committed the future of this country to is the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob and His only Son Jesus Christ. When we turn our backs on Him and allow the prayers to idols in the very seat of our government, He will turn away from this country and give it over to its own perverse ways. That is exactly what is happening.

Posted by Paul Pyle | August 8, 2007 6:12 PM

Posted on August 8, 2007 18:12
Gary Hill:

I am a firm believer that our nation is in the terrible mess from the erossion of our forefathers founded Bibical standards. A standard that taught that there is NO compromises to the word of God, and NO tolarance to any false religion what so ever. Read your History books, proven, when a nation forgets God anything and everything is up for grabs. Moral decline, God's blessings are no more, strong nations become second rate countries. Look at England, once a great nation. But they forgot something. God!

Posted by Gary Hill | August 8, 2007 6:23 PM

Posted on August 8, 2007 18:23
Janice Williams:

With regards to the Hindu Prayer. It is a very big deal. The bible says, "we wrestle not against flesh and blood; but against principalities, powers, rulers of darkness of this world, wicked spirits in heavenly places. If you understand anything about the spiritual realm, you will know that those who pray to other gods, are calling upon spirits, and those spirits are being invited to come and bring into manifestation what they are praying for. Those spirits must be sent back where they came from, or, what they have been asked to do and what they have not been asked to do will to be in operation. Let us rise up with the authority and power Jesus Christ gave to us, and cast out the demonsin Jesus Name.

About the Muslim Congressman. We must remember the ballot box is out voice. When we vote or don't vote we are speaking what we will to be done in this nation. In Psalms, there is a scripture that says "he has given the earth to the children of men." If we don't want certain people elected to office, than we can't just complain and not vote. The Body of Christ is failing. It's only a small majority of the Body of Christ that vote. But, we sure can grumble and complain and be enraged. So, I say to everyone, if you don't want the muslims or any other religious or non-religious person in office, find out who they are and what their platform is, and "GO-GO-GO-to the polls and vote. Until our right to vote is taken away, we are still in charge and in control as to what is happening in our nation. If the politicians get in and they have deceived the people, then vote them out of office. And please, lets stop voting religion, political parties, etc. Lets please become informed about the people in office, or trying to get into office. Lets look at voting records. Lets find out everything we can, then vote. The bible, says "my people are destroyed because for a lack of knowledge."

Posted by Janice Williams | August 8, 2007 6:52 PM

Posted on August 8, 2007 18:52
Michelle-Marie hodges:

I think all should read this. It is from the First Amendment of our Constitution. It reads;

"Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,"

The idea that membership in a certain religion should be a requirement of eligibility to hold governmental office is contrary to the very ideals our founding fathers envisioned.


Posted by Michelle-Marie hodges | August 8, 2007 7:06 PM

Posted on August 8, 2007 19:06

REP. SALI = TRAITOR!!

Posted by Tony | August 9, 2007 9:53 AM

Posted on August 9, 2007 09:53
Dunesong:

Article VI, section 3, of the US constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.


Note the important phrase:

...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

What the senator is advocating is unconstitutional and directly opposed to the principals set out by our founding fathers. He could not be more wrong.

Posted by Dunesong | August 9, 2007 9:59 AM

Posted on August 9, 2007 09:59
Hubert Baldwin:

Thank you Congressman Sali for the guts to avoid being politically correct. WOW, you are the only Congressional voice I have heard taking a stand for what America was founded and prospered on through these years.
Maybe, just maybe others will see your example and add their voice.
YOU ARE A REAL LEADER

Posted by Hubert Baldwin | August 9, 2007 10:29 AM

Posted on August 9, 2007 10:29
James:

When this great Nation we live in was more concerned with the teaching of G_d in our schools and homes, other Nations feared and respected us,they know the power of our G_d. Now that we have allowed, all that to be lose, they feel the power of Satan to destroy us before we wake from our sleep. We still have the power of G_d when we what it. We need to give up alot of the things of this world which has made us slaves to the way of Satan. There is nothing to fear except when faith is covered over by something else. It is our duty to put off the things of Satan and put on the armore of Christ.

Posted by James | August 9, 2007 12:08 PM

Posted on August 9, 2007 12:08
Sarah Angeletti:

By agreeing to this and by the Hindu prayer being allowed what they are saying is that our Founding Fathers work for this country was done for nothing, and for every war our soldiers have fought in to defend OUR freedom and OUR COUNTRY was for nothing. I dare anyone to say they argree to this to someone who has lost a loved one to this country for our freedom. If you go to another country you are required to speak their language, live by their laws and religion. In a country were the U.S. Senate was built on Christian beliefs a Christian prayer should be said to open the U.S Senate. Our country should not have to change it's views, morals, or ethics because someone from another country, this country, or another religion does not agree with it. They can speak their peace and be done with it, they do not have to like it but they do have to respect it. This includes the many Americans that do not believe that this country should be ran the way that our Founding Fathers envisioned. God bless Senator Sali for speaking up for this country, and those who know with out a doubt that he is correct in this issue. Remember what our Founding Fathers envisioned and worked so hard for, as well as every American Soldier who fought for OUR Freedom, as well as what our American Flag and this Country represents!

Posted by Sarah Angeletti | August 9, 2007 1:36 PM

Posted on August 9, 2007 13:36
Elizabeth Ryniak:

Sali a traitor????????. How could anyone even think that when the prayer said was to a god we cannot serve.Why a hindu god?????
There in only one God , Father , Son and Holy Spirit.

NOT allah.

This nation is on a fast track to HELL if we allow this to take place.

Trust in God at all times and lean NOT to your own understanding.
Thank you Mr. Sali and speak to those around you to stop these prayers to other gods.

Posted by Elizabeth Ryniak | August 9, 2007 4:23 PM

Posted on August 9, 2007 16:23

Innovation at Google - must watch

This is a 50 minute presentation with little happening except one guy standing up and talking about how to innovate... and I was enthralled through the entire discussion--watched the whole 50 minutes, might watch it again sometime.

No wonder our perception of beauty is distorted

Kudos to Dove.
Campaign For Real Beauty
Flash version of Youtube video below, if the video below also gets removed from Youtube.

The video from a few days ago was removed. Maybe this one won't be.

Dove's global Campaign for Real Beauty aims to change the status quo and offer in its place a broader, healthier, more democratic view of beauty. A view of beauty that all women can own and enjoy everyday.

In order to achieve this important goal, the Campaign for Real Beauty includes the following initiatives:


* Creation of a forum for women to participate in a dialogue and debate about the definition and standards of beauty in society
* Release of a global, academic research study that explores the relationship that women from around the world have with beauty and its links to their happiness and well-being
* Advertising that inspires women and society to think differently about what is defined as beautiful
* Fundraising initiatives (sponsored by the Dove Self-Esteem Fund) to help young girls with low body-related self esteem
* Self-esteem workshops with young girls in schools to help them foster a healthy relationship with and confidence in their bodies and their looks
* Establishment of the Program for Aesthetics and Well-Being at Harvard University, through a grant from Dove, which will continue to examine the way we think and talk about beauty in popular culture and the effect that this has on women's well-being
* Creation of a global touring photography exhibit, Beyond Compare, Women Photographers on Beauty, showcasing diverse images of female beauty from 67 female photographers, and demonstrating that beauty is about much more than stereotypes

2 parenting blogs I'm currently enjoying:

www.parenthacks.com - especially posts by Stu Mark
www.gnmparents.com

Warring parenting choices

Why We War:

What they are at war with, I guess, is a combination of their own inflated expectations and the haunting worry that they will let their children down. Sometimes, having fewer choices is easier than having too many. The parents in The Kindergarten Wars have oodles of choice. If they didn't have the money and the connections, they wouldn't have the agony of a year-long military campaign designed to capture a top spot. They'd make do. They'd probably sleep better at night.

But there's really no telling people, is there?

Brain, Child :: The Magazine for Thinking Mothers

This magazine's proven interesting...

Brain, Child :: The Magazine for Thinking Mothers:

Brain, Child treats motherhood as a subject worthy of literature. And in the best tradition of literature, it celebrates the diversity of mothers and their styles. Our essays and features address readers as thinking individuals, not just medicine- dispensing, food-fixing, boo-boo-kissing mommies. We think of it this way: When our mothers wanted to hash over the important stuff with their girlfriends, they'd say to us, 'Honey, the grown-ups are talking.' Brain, Child is like that: the place where grown-ups are talking.

Brain, Child cuts past a lot of the bull to get to the voices that are truest -- not experts, but women who are or have been there. We gave Brain, Child the subtitle 'The Magazine for Thinking Mothers,' but it could just as easily have been 'Motherhood The Way It Really Is.' Our writers bring a down-to-earth perspective to traditional and not-so-traditional parenting subjects. And they're willing to address the big questions -- our evolving identities as mothers, for instance, or what we're teaching the next generation.

Brain, Child is a community, although we're wary of the term. (It's not, for instance, the kind of community where everyone sits around and sings friendship songs while secretly hating each other. Or the kind of community where women with nothing else in common compete in the baby-with-the-earliest-tooth or teen-with-the-tidiest-hair contest.) You know that friend you call when you're upset and just the sound of her voice calms you? You know those friends you go out to dinner with and stay long after dessert, talking and laughing, until the waiter kicks you out? It's that kind of community.

We aim to be down-to-earth, literary, commonsensical, neither too establishment nor too crunchy, funny, poignant, honest, respectful, irreverent, relevant, intelligent. We don't have any particular agenda, except to support thought and debate on topics of interest to mothers.

Each issue of Brain, Child is packed with personal essays, in-depth features, a debate, a parody, fiction, and words from you: our community, our readers. Visit our table of contents to see what we mean.

A World of Babies

I liked this paragraph, even if I didn't agree with the article.

Brain,Child - The Magazine for Thinking Mothers: "Glance through A World of Babies (edited by Judy S. Deloache and Alma Gottleib), in which anthropologists imaginatively construct childcare manuals for seven different cultures. The Beng of the Ivory Coast give their babies twice daily enemas (perhaps to compensate for the lack of Pampers? so they won't have to know exactly when to snatch baby out of the sling?). They swear that these enemas are necessary for the baby's health, and that parents should not be prevented from performing them by their baby's screams of anguish. The Balinese start their babies on mashed bananas and rice cereal the first day of their lives. They are certain that colostrum is indigestible, and the baby needs to eat something before the mother's milk comes in. The Trobriand Islanders, immortalized in the 1920s in a watershed ethnography by anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski, are often viewed as the archetypal blissed-out, natural-and-free, half-naked human-animals luxuriating in a South Seas paradise. Yet they wean their babies around their first birthday, careless of the World Health Organization's advice that mother's milk is the perfect nutrition for babies up until at least age two. They accomplish this by sending mom away on a surprise (to the baby) vacation for a week or so, leaving the baby to dad's tender ministrations."

A World of Babies at Powell's