Eradicating Antisemitism from the American Public System

[mastralvarado]

The English language itself is to blame for the lack of education in public school systems in order to acquire better non-discriminating Jobs. Hitler used German to persuade the masses against the Jews of Europe and the World. English is a Germanic based language system with a few add-ons from Mediterranean languages. Germanic language is very technical, frank. Yet, the Nazis lost World War II. It seems that siding with anything Nazi is a sure gamble. Therefore, English people should side with Semitic peoples instead of Nazis or anyone with nazism in their past. English has had much influence from religious, fanatical Germans in the past. If English is discriminating in the language per se, the American people (i.e. North Americans living in U.S.), having separation of church and state, should consider if the English language is biased towards religious proliferation.

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. .A. Einstein

Background

Old English, old French, old Slavic and other languages were not written down since Chinese had the paper monopoly. Few people could write and only semitic languages, Sanskrit and Chinese and Greek characters were written in papyri parchments or skins.

English is too loaded with auspicious words that are bathed with precocious double entendrés, euphemisms and acronyms in order to entertain, insult, or speculate: urban dictionaries are examples of this. For example, in 2009, in England calling a woman a 'daft bint' is not insulting and yet in America it is.

The only solution in my opinion is to teach young people Arabic in schools in order to make them distinguish between the auspicious and non-auspicious. Auspicious words come from the Sanskrit. Chinese, though with far less influence especially in romance languages, has had much influence recently. One example is the Spanish word "Si" (Chinese equivalent: 轼 /shī/) which means 'yes' in English. But Chinese has recently had no sufficient influence in auspicious words to make it relevant; (except in numerology) the grammatical influence has not only been recently (or may be just coincidental which is doubtful).

Arabic is not derived from Sanskrit nor Chinese, and has been impervious to any auspicious influence to it by rest of the world; it has no auspicious words in it (Arabic dictionaries omit 'yasara' which means "he played at dice"). Children cannot be taught two languages at a time.

English can be used to insult in the euphemism and dysphemism treadmills of which public schools definitely teach via lack of ethical controls on language mode distinctions (e.g. telling the kids the difference between insulting and joking; harassing and hazards, truths and half-truths).

Most children go to public schools

This can be a test using several school districts as sample. If English should be taught as a secondary language (as it should) it would in no way turn a child less American than one who has English as EFL (English as a first language). Arabic is harder to learn as a person grows older. Therefore, it is only in the name of Antisemitism that this approach is being proposed.

Maltese, which is an Arabic dialect that has no Arabic characters, is a language that has an Arabic-like speech but Latin characters. Hence it would be of no use since it easily destroys meanings [1] from lack of Arabic grammar and borrowing from English and German languages.

Therefore, Arabic is the appropriate language to teach since it has no auspicious characters and the American society, by using it in pre-elementary schools, eradicates Antisemitism. The question now is whether to teach them classical or modern Arabic.
___________

[1] http://www.macmillandictionary.com/M...LI-Maltese.htm


Notes:
(ESL) means English as a Second Language
(EFL) means English as a First Language
(AFL) means Arabic as First Language

[mastralvarado]

For people who answered "separation of church and state has nothing to do with the language that the majority in a country speaks"

Please consider these premises before you post.

As a theology, every major religion seeks to convert the rest of the world that it is the religion to follow.

If every person in the world had the same religion there would be no need of national/state recognition.

National/state recognition is done by speech and writing,

Therefore language has everything to do with religion.

• How did people/cultures with different languages come about?
  
• How would you recognize the difference between church and State?
  
• What factors limit the spread of a religion in the rest of nations/states?

[shunyadragon]

The English language itself is to blame for the lack of education in public school systems in order to acquire better non-discriminating Jobs. Hitler used German to persuade the masses against the Jews of Europe and the World. English is a Germanic based language system with a few add-ons from Mediterranean languages. Germanic language is very technical, frank. Yet, the Nazis lost World War II. It seems that siding with anything Nazi is a sure gamble. Therefore, English people should side with Semitic peoples instead of Nazis or anyone with nazism in their past. English has had much influence from religious, fanatical Germans in the past. If English is discriminating in the language per se, the American people (i.e. North Americans living in U.S.), having separation of church and state, should consider if the English language is biased towards religious proliferation.

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. .A. Einstein

Notes:
(ESL) means English as a Second Language
(EFL) means English as a First Language
(AFL) means Arabic as First Language

First, anti-Semitism (anti-Jewish?) is only one of the many ethic and religious conflict problems of the world, which even by the name anti-Semitism is misleading, because Arabs themselves are mostly Semite.

I found it difficult to respond to the poll as worded, language does not by itself cause or lead to prejudice or religious conflict. The associations you cited above for English are erroneous and misleading. In the ancient world that most religion. like Judaism, Christianity and Islam, language was strongly associated with religion. Judaism and Islam remain strongly associated with their language of origin, because of the doctrinal requirement that their scripture must be learned and used in their religion. This creates a bias and seperation based on language that is difficult to overcome. Neither Hebrew nor Arabic can divorce themselves from this strong association.

Today most educated people of the world are bilingual at least, and the Holy Books of the major religions occur in many languages. English is at present is the international language of choice and it is an okay language for this purpose in part because it is an evolving language drawing words from many languages. Associating it with the negative attributes you describe creates an air of conflict and discord, which is an attribute of clinging to ancient world views like Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It is the ancient world view itself that breeds the discord and conflict and not language.

[Binkster]

didn't mean to vote...don't count mine haha

[mastralvarado]

Greetings shunyadragon, thanks for your reply:

First, anti-Semitism (anti-Jewish?) is only one of the many ethic and religious conflict problems of the world, which even by the name anti-Semitism is misleading, because Arabs themselves are mostly Semite.

This is true. There are many variations of the term: Antisemitism, antisemitism, anti-semitic, Anti-Semitic, and the rest. Make no mistake, anti-semitism should be used with referral to Semitic speakers/peoples (Arabs, Arameans, Hebrews, Berbers).

It's also very important to understand that anti-Semitic can be an adjective and a noun. For example, one could say:

"Hitler is an anti-Semitic bigot" which translates as "racist fanatic". This in itself is fine. Contrary to this, you could say, "you are being accused of anti-Semitism" which translates to actually using anti-Semitic speech/writings.

I found it difficult to respond to the poll as worded, language does not by itself cause or lead to prejudice or religious conflict.

Yes this is also true. The usage of language without understanding some of its abstract terms such as "separation" could lead ignorance which is what a language's enemy is as well as the enemy of freedom-loving people. If a language has many words which are arch typical of authoritarian regimes and these words are used for war mongering, they will cause the ignorant persons to fall to the rhetoric. The downfall of any nation is conformance to eloquent speech that has no scientific nor logical background in its inception (lying, half-truths, slang). The opposite usage of speech may not be as eloquent but it is well founded upon mathematical principles and geometries should make sense and also be well founded upon eternal principles (morality, veracity, justice, phronesis). This is what speech should (pragmatically) look like all of the time it should show both sides of itself so that no mistake can be made in decision-making.

The associations you cited above for English are erroneous and misleading.

English can be used to insult in the euphemism and dysphemism treadmills of which public schools definitely teach via lack of ethical controls on language mode distinctions (e.g. telling the kids the difference between insulting and joking; harassing and hazards, truths and half-truths).

Let me explain the reason why English is not a God sanctioned language:

Mt. 5:22

But I say unto you That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment and whosoever __ shall say to his brother Raca shall be in danger of the council but whosoever __ shall say Thou fool shall be in danger of hell fire

Children in most American public schools are taught to sin (by refusing to teach biblical passages such as Mt. 5:22 or lack of general ethics). Mix wrongful usage of words and every sin imaginable and you get depression. This is why it's wrong to use English in public schools especially in the the only superpower after the cold war.

Since the country is now in a recession and if this does not change, the next event in an economic cycle is a depression. Therefore, since language is intrinsically tied to economy via the abstract term of separation of Church and State and this cannot be changed, the logical conclusion is to change the language. Speculation is somewhat related to rhetoric and freedom loving people are to scared to appaulled to convert from a democratic republic to a theocratic parliamentary such as Iran because of all the influence the Catholic church has on the majority of the population. Therefore, it can only be natural being the only nation that claims to be fair and balanced to create several school districts whose parents will have their kids be taught a Semitic language from the start while they learn the same language on their own. This language can be any semitic language. But I would not recommend Hebrew as a First Language (HFL) because of all the influence the Jews have using think tanks to send Americans to war in Iraq and possibly Iran (the latter for the sole protection of Israel)

In the ancient world that most religion. like Judaism, Christianity and Islam, language was strongly associated with religion.

I bet Mel Gibson would like Aramaic as a First Language to be taught in these school districts in order for more kids to go watch his movie ("the passion").

Judaism and Islam remain strongly associated with their language of origin, because of the doctrinal requirement that their scripture must be learned and used in their religion.

Aramaic as a first language would have no such ties to religion. What religion did Jesus (AS) practice? In effect, several school districts could practice Aramaic and others Arabic. As I mentioned before, Hebrew would not be a recommended choice until the political situation where Jews have worked their ways to the top of many industries which control/lead publicity, media and foreign policy changes.

These media/policy/commerce cultures have helped bring about this recession. The impact of such a recession should concern many people including those not living in the U.S.

This creates a bias and seperation based on language that is difficult to overcome. Neither Hebrew nor Arabic can divorce themselves from this strong association.

The modern arabic language is one, there there are two modes of scripture (Classical and Quranic). You're right again, both of these scripts cannot divorce themselves from the religious association. I'm curious, do you think that Church be separated from State neither? The U.S., Britain, Spain and France as well as other "freedom loving" nations certainly claims to have done so. But I don't believe that this is the case. People are required to enroll in the military in the U.S. after they turn a certain age. This is in no way democratic.

Today most educated people of the world are bilingual at least, and the Holy Books of the major religions occur in many languages.

I see no problem with being bilingual (except in the case of being a troll).
See. There's no reason why English should not remain a frank language, I'm just saying that there must be a reason for the recession and consequential depression that looms in the future. This can either be that the English language is to blame or that these Israeli-backed think tanks are the culprits. I choose to think its the first. That way, if more people understand semitic tongues and become pro-semitic adherents no religious basis implied into this and the language that should be God-sanctioned should be original in both speech and writing unlike Maltese. Only one language should be chosen to promote this idea since it is a bad idea to promote confusion which is what frank languages serve to extinguish.

English is at present is the international language of choice and it is an okay language for this purpose in part because it is an evolving language drawing words from many languages.

This is where you and me part ways. The addition of new words in languages only makes it harder for children to learn even if these new words are derived from several languages. In the long run it's not ok given the level of globalization which technology has helped bring about. But in the short haul it is ok.

Associating it with the negative attributes you describe creates an air of conflict and discord, which is an attribute of clinging to ancient world views like Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It is the ancient world view itself that breeds the discord and conflict and not language.

Yes, its true I deem the English language to blame for many things that are immoral and that go on in the English speaking world but this cannot be only tied to the profane language itself but to differing DNA patterns in skin, thought and behavior: these things do have no bearing in separation of Religion and State contrary to ordinary speech which is the method with which nations and individuals get their recognition.

The Romans had a reason for naming the Germanic speaking peoples vulgar: its because they assimilated and borrowed many words from those languages they could somewhat understand to their own perversion.

If nations have separated Religion from State this is owed due partly to the discovery of new lands which the Old world did was not acquainted with. For the most part it has been due to the success of commerce of good and services but this has now provoked the exaggerated accumulation of a better part of wealth in the hands of a few whilst the rest of humanity is in a pyramid-like descent of High class, middle class and low class castes of which are remiders of what the People of the Book (the Jews) suffered while at the hand of Pharaoh. The deserts of the pyramids of Egypt show the world what happens when history repeats itself.

Adopting English as a First language may sound fine at first, but it has a certain nationality to it, England. If there is a separation of religion and state there should be no ambiguity in language. Americans are not pawns of English people and should choose to remain so by promoting the usage of a semitic frank First language within in order to promote an appropriate fairness to compensate the loss of life in lands of Semitic descent.

This compensation could well turn out to be an experiment to see using scientific instruments and specialists to see if young children adapt better to a globalized world if a Semitic language is used using volunteer parents with or without knowledge of the chosen Semitic language.

In a globalized world a frank language that seeks to dominate the economy does not compute well for global welfare. Consider unrelated factors such as global warming and population growth. No one wants a person that promotes Malthusian methods for the advancement of freedom.

[rogue06]

It is consider impolite in many circles to not offer to share whatever you are smoking.

[shunyadragon]

Yes this is also true. The usage of language without understanding some of its abstract terms such as "separation" could lead ignorance which is what a language's enemy is as well as the enemy of freedom-loving people. If a language has many words which are arch typical of authoritarian regimes and these words are used for war mongering, they will cause the ignorant persons to fall to the rhetoric. The downfall of any nation is conformance to eloquent speech that has no scientific nor logical background in its inception (lying, half-truths, slang). The opposite usage of speech may not be as eloquent but it is well founded upon mathematical principles and geometries should make sense and also be well founded upon eternal principles (morality, veracity, justice, phronesis). This is what speech should (pragmatically) look like all of the time it should show both sides of itself so that no mistake can be made in decision-making.

This could be true of most languages, including Arabic. I am not sure where your leading to with this.

Let me explain the reason why English is not a God sanctioned language:

Mt. 5:22

But I say unto you That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment and whosoever __ shall say to his brother Raca shall be in danger of the council but whosoever __ shall say Thou fool shall be in danger of hell fire

Children in most American public schools are taught to sin (by refusing to teach biblical passages such as Mt. 5:22 or lack of general ethics). Mix wrongful usage of words and every sin imaginable and you get depression. This is why it's wrong to use English in public schools especially in the the only superpower after the cold war.

Since the country is now in a recession and if this does not change, the next event in an economic cycle is a depression. Therefore, since language is intrinsically tied to economy via the abstract term of separation of Church and State and this cannot be changed, the logical conclusion is to change the language. Speculation is somewhat related to rhetoric and freedom loving people are to scared to appaulled to convert from a democratic republic to a theocratic parliamentary such as Iran because of all the influence the Catholic church has on the majority of the population. Therefore, it can only be natural being the only nation that claims to be fair and balanced to create several school districts whose parents will have their kids be taught a Semitic language from the start while they learn the same language on their own. This language can be any semitic language. But I would not recommend Hebrew as a First Language (HFL) because of all the influence the Jews have using think tanks to send Americans to war in Iraq and possibly Iran (the latter for the sole protection of Israel).

Temporal politics and economics do not have basis in judging a language. Your comment about what is a God sanctioned language creates an immediate bias from an ancient perspective that has little value in a world of more universal and diverse needs than an ancient world view that claims their language is a God sanctioned language. In fact to day it claims to be the only God anctioned language, which would directly link Islam to learning Arabic in this view.

English is accepted as the current world second language for scientific, economic, technological and academic needs and reasons, which
pther languages cannot meet.

I bet Mel Gibson would like Aramaic as a First Language to be taught in these school districts in order for more kids to go watch his movie ("the passion").

Aramaic as a first language would have no such ties to religion. What religion did Jesus (AS) practice? In effect, several school districts could practice Aramaic and others Arabic. As I mentioned before, Hebrew would not be a recommended choice until the political situation where Jews have worked their ways to the top of many industries which control/lead publicity, media and foreign policy changes.

No Mel Gigson would not, your sarcasm is noted. Armeic is an ancient language that lacks basic vocabulary to communicate in today's world.

These media/policy/commerce cultures have helped bring about this recession. The impact of such a recession should concern many people including those not living in the U.S.

Again tempral econmics has nothing to do with what is an appropiate language.

The modern arabic language is one, there there are two modes of scripture (Classical and Quranic). You're right again, both of these scripts cannot divorce themselves from the religious association. I'm curious, do you think that Church be separated from State neither? The U.S., Britain, Spain and France as well as other "freedom loving" nations certainly claims to have done so. But I don't believe that this is the case. People are required to enroll in the military in the U.S. after they turn a certain age. This is in no way democratic.

The ability to seperate church and state is another issue. Though, the United States and Britian are far more successful than most Islamic countries.

At present men nor women are required to enroll in the military in the US. Again this not an issue on the appropriateness of a language.

I see no problem with being bilingual (except in the case of being a troll).
See. There's no reason why English should not remain a frank language, I'm just saying that there must be a reason for the recession and consequential depression that looms in the future. This can either be that the English language is to blame or that these Israeli-backed think tanks are the culprits. I choose to think its the first. That way, if more people understand semitic tongues and become pro-semitic adherents no religious basis implied into this and the language that should be God-sanctioned should be original in both speech and writing unlike Maltese. Only one language should be chosen to promote this idea since it is a bad idea to promote confusion which is what frank languages serve to extinguish.

Again your bias toward some sort of God sanctioned language creates many problems for the expectaion that Buddhists, Hindus or followers of other religions and beliefs would be willing to follow this. I personally would prefer a language that was not claimed to be God sanctioned by one religion or another. Again your religious and political bias influences your argument here, and that is not good when considering a language to be used by people from many cultures and beliefs.

This is where you and me part ways. The addition of new words in languages only makes it harder for children to learn even if these new words are derived from several languages. In the long run it's not ok given the level of globalization which technology has helped bring about. But in the short haul it is ok.

In the long haul a language like Fenglish best serves the purpose. The new words have never been a barrier to people learning language at the basic and intermediate levels. The use of the words are rarely complex unless they meet specialized needs of science, accademics and technology. This where languages like Arabic, Hebrew and Chinese fall short, and Armeic could not possibly ever meet this need. It would be wholely impractical to change frank second tongue languages at different levels.

Yes, its true I deem the English language to blame for many things that are immoral and that go on in the English speaking world but this cannot be only tied to the profane language itself but to differing DNA patterns in skin, thought and behavior: these things do have no bearing in separation of Religion and State contrary to ordinary speech which is the method with which nations and individuals get their recognition.

This again would make your proposals difficult to accept. This negative view of language and DA would hardly be acceptable on the international level.

The Romans had a reason for naming the Germanic speaking peoples vulgar: its because they assimilated and borrowed many words from those languages they could somewhat understand to their own perversion.

Again your tone of heavy bias is what makes your proposals unacceptable on an international. Even your rone of bias approaches violence, and this a problem I have with what is taking place in the Islamic world concerning other religions and cultures.

If nations have separated Religion from State this is owed due partly to the discovery of new lands which the Old world did was not acquainted with. For the most part it has been due to the success of commerce of good and services but this has now provoked the exaggerated accumulation of a better part of wealth in the hands of a few whilst the rest of humanity is in a pyramid-like descent of High class, middle class and low class castes of which are remiders of what the People of the Book (the Jews) suffered while at the hand of Pharaoh. The deserts of the pyramids of Egypt show the world what happens when history repeats itself.

This happening in the oil rich Islamic countries also. It is a very human problem and universal.

Adopting English as a First language may sound fine at first, but it has a certain nationality to it, England. If there is a separation of religion and state there should be no ambiguity in language. Americans are not pawns of English people and should choose to remain so by promoting the usage of a semitic frank First language within in order to promote an appropriate fairness to compensate the loss of life in lands of Semitic descent.

This a view of a past age and not relavent today. In the US frank languages are more a matter of practicality and this is the case that should be taken worldwide. Spanish is joining English as the second language of the US for practical reasons, as is Engish being the best choice for the international language of choice.

This compensation could well turn out to be an experiment to see using scientific instruments and specialists to see if young children adapt better to a globalized world if a Semitic language is used using volunteer parents with or without knowledge of the chosen Semitic language.

In a globalized world a frank language that seeks to dominate the economy does not compute well for global welfare. Consider unrelated factors such as global warming and population growth. No one wants a person that promotes Malthusian methods for the advancement of freedom.

Again you are equating language with temperal economic and political situations, as well as a strong religious and political bias, which would be unacceptable to most people.

[mastralvarado]

It is consider impolite in many circles to not offer to share whatever you are smoking.

Wanna know what I've been smoking? Read and reread my signature to find out.

[technomage]

If every person in the world had the same religion there would be no need of national/state recognition.

False. Please examine Medieval and Renaissance Europe, and the modern Middle East, to understand that religion is not the sole factor in the development of nationality.

National/state recognition is done by speech and writing,

False, else England, Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand would all be recognized as one country.

The errors that you make are so systemic it is difficult to pick just a few for analysis and rebuttal, but this should suffice for a mere beginning.

[mastralvarado]

Greetings shunyadragon and thanks again for your reply,

This could be true of most languages, including Arabic. I am not sure where your leading to with this.

Yes all languages can be easily perverted. Let me change the point of view now. Good listeners can tell the difference between when a person changes personality. English changes one's personality when one speaks it. If you don't believe this it is only appropriate that you can't because english is the your first language. But people with english as a second language do tend to notice the difference of speech tone which dramatically changes personality no so much grammatically.
I guarantee that most people who learn english as a second language will notice how precocious one's accent (suprasegmentality is mostly lost in english): notice how most languages use suprasegmental marks for its grammar so that the speaker has guidance in regards to tone of voice to use for nominal speech and grammar/reading. In English one can end up reinterpreting many phrases and words in another language which may not be the best or nominal for learning, but when an english speaker reads and misinterprets the original accent and tone of voice that the writer intended, he or she may altogether misconstrue the meaning from a positive connotation to a negative one (or vice versa)

Temporal politics and economics do not have basis in judging a language.

Your comment about what is a God sanctioned language creates an immediate bias from an ancient perspective that has little value in a world of more universal and diverse needs than an ancient world view that claims their language is a God sanctioned language. In fact to day it claims to be the only God anctioned language, which would directly link Islam to learning Arabic in this view. [/quote]
So you don't like my bias, he? There fore one can pretend to not believe in a God and should omit all reference to a god and could easily see the original argument which was historical. Recent history, which regardless of its quantitative accuracy, is fairly reliable with respect to the winners and losers to the last conflict of disastrous proportions. Non-semitic people who fought and spoke germanic languages lost and people who spoke the english language apparently won. This brief period of 50 years of prosperity since the last World War was too brief ever since the recent recession. The real winners and losers of the last WW were Semitic peoples including Jews. Jews have not lost prosperity until recently because of the Madoff scandal but that was just one incident which can neither blame all Jews as analogous to one Catholic priest committing pedophilia can be used to blame all the Catholic Church. Ergo, the real winners and losers of the last conflict of major proportions are the Semitic peoples (Jews).

Should an educated person who knows of recent history decide to side with some persons who have a history of survival, what would one pick: a Semitic person or a non-semitic person? I pick the first.

English is accepted as the current world second language for scientific, economic, technological and academic needs and reasons, which pther languages cannot meet.

Sure, English is accepted as the language par excellence for many different fields. Everyone who ventures into globalization wants to appear smart including me.

No Mel Gigson would not, your sarcasm is noted. Armeic is an ancient language that lacks basic vocabulary to communicate in today's world.

Why? That doesn't mean that aramaic can be used for an international language. Notice Esperanto, its a new language but there can be no reason why Aramaic should be used as a first language. Young people need much vocabulary to in the "global village" at first. Later, they could be taught English cause that's what Americans speak pardon my bilingualism

Again tempral econmics has nothing to do with what is an appropriate language.

Why not? Why can't the current recession be blamed on English-speaking speculators? You have provided no reason why this should not be the case using historical tendencies or a Kondratieff cycle. Russians have nothing to do with what speculators decide to do using speech. Maybe speculators who have English as a first language should not be allowed to work in stock exchange markets.

The ability to seperate church and state is another issue. Though, the United States and Britian are far more successful than most Islamic countries.

That's a good point. Separation of State and Church, define it. I'm waiting for a rebuttal full of eloquent rhetoric.

At present men nor women are required to enroll in the military in the US.

That's good news. Didn't know that at all but maybe more of them should in order to bring more Arab teachers to the U.S. in order to create more Semitic people.

Again this not an issue on the appropriateness of a language.

English is not inappropriate. It just is not a natural language for ESL speakers. Conversely, for EFL speakers many other languages are not natural; they take many years to speak fluently and rarely do an EFL speaker render the speech as fluently as they did their first love. People tend to think in their first language not the second although no evidence can demonstrate this for a fact. There are many theories that categorize personalities into 8, 9 or 16 classes and they are all undemonstrative in my opinion since there are too many people in the world to test. Language certainly changes a person personality. English speakers either EFL or ESL who practice English tend want to engage in more sexually explicit phenomena: I have no basis for mentioning this but its logical in normal females and males who socialize.

Again your bias toward some sort of God sanctioned language creates many problems for the expectaion that Buddhists, Hindus or followers of other religions and beliefs would be willing to follow this.

Forget about English being a God-sanctioned language for now. Imagine the world hangs in the balance for peace or conflict. To the left is the conspiracy theory loons who want to wage war on invisible entities such as terrorists and illuminati. To the right are people who value freedom and family values to choose what their children will be taught in schools. Noticing the tendency in that which recent history has caused which is a duality of true winners and true losers in WWII which were Semitic peoples' all fake winners and fake losers were germans and Americans because they were immediately pitted into another war the Cold War and even 11 years after that they were forced into war such as the "war on terror": a parallel conspiracy theory of not enough evidence can be provided for (notice all the WTC rubble sold off to China).

I personally would prefer a language that was not claimed to be God sanctioned by one religion or another.

That's good. Notice that just because a person says I worship "God" it may or may not be the same God of Abraham that the Christians Jews and Muslims worship. Again, ignore all the G-d sanctioned propaganda which I previously posted in my last response to you. Work things out in your mind.

Again your religious and political bias influences your argument here, and that is not good when considering a language to be used by people from many cultures and beliefs.

I take the godless position just for your convenience since you choose to see my bias instead of the historical tendency in light of modern times.

In the long haul a language like Fenglish best serves the purpose. The new words have never been a barrier to people learning language at the basic and intermediate levels. The use of the words are rarely complex unless they meet specialized needs of science, accademics and technology. This where languages like Arabic, Hebrew and Chinese fall short, and Armeic could not possibly ever meet this need. It would be wholely impractical to change frank second tongue languages at different levels.

What do you mean impractical? Can't in a democracy the impossible become possible. I find it sad that persons are wholly incapable of taking action for the benefit of their little ones and the eradication of antisemitism. Where there are such tremendous differences in wealth in power among nations there will never be peace for the hatred of the snob will always remain people's hearts. Think about this:

Why was Esperanto being promoted as an exchange language for current international language *english*? Someone certainly thought it was possible, not withstanding Esperanto's simplicity, for some obscure reason wanted it it so. You already mentioned it was impractical to change the frank language.

This again would make your proposals difficult to accept. This negative view of language and DA would hardly be acceptable on the international level.

I have a negative view of American English and even more so for British English because it is derived from monarchical speech. It is simply a precocious language which EFL speakers have no idea of. Arabic is more suited as an international language since it has substantially more complexity but is second only to Chinese in its learning curve. The ability to separate a first language to a second language in a individual's mind most certainly slows down an economy plunging it into an even faster recession especially when English is not even close to being all that difficult to learn. The accumulation of individuals who are tied to their ignominy which is what the englust language promotes certainly has no future in a globalized society with Chinese climbing steadily to the top.

Again your tone of heavy bias is what makes your proposals unacceptable on an international. Even your rone of bias approaches violence, and this a problem I have with what is taking place in the Islamic world concerning other religions and cultures.

Notice the common origins of german and english. English speakers classify into two American English and British English which is more orthodox than the first. The latter's nominal pronunciation is the same English that the Queen of England uses. Americans need to separate themselves from this orthodoxy since they are trying to separate themselves from their mother Nation: the reason the Americans separated religion from State (the Church of England had much influence in foreign policy before America's independence). The only way this separation from their "mother" is possible now is with their tongue since it is clear that the same people who run the U.S. run England or vice versa: there is no conspiracy theory on this just an observation from all current and recent past events.

Again, notice the that zero bias towards religion on my behalf on all the previous paragraph.

It would be in my interest as a religious person who adheres to monotheism and belief in the same God of Abraham that a family value, freedom loving people should believe in God.

This happening in the oil rich Islamic countries also. It is a very human problem and universal.

Yes, it may be that Islamic countries are being too hateful toward non Islamic countries who just happened to be invaded by the British and the western Superpower who happen to be lead by the top Israeli think tanks to their own destruction. Anyone who hates the Jews happens to get their as*es whooped in recent times. It may be that God does not favor Islamic countries recently.

This a view of a past age and not relavent today. In the US frank languages are more a matter of practicality and this is the case that should be taken worldwide. Spanish is joining English as the second language of the US for practical reasons, as is Engish being the best choice for the international language of choice.

Yes this all true. But how long can this stand if the Chinese decide to start selling their dollars in the markets and there is no one to speak and convince them otherwise?

Again you are equating language with temperal economic and political situations, as well as a strong religious and political bias, which would be unacceptable to most people.

Language has everything to do with political and economic situations as well as lack thereof of its usage. This is the problem I have detected in most of today's American society and even my own. There is a form of anger which is caused by the unpredictable economical and political roller coaster that the capitalist/socialist U.S. economy has turned out to be for the globalized world. This anger can be either taken to the grave or little children can be imbued with a new song which is Arabic, Aramaic or, what the heck, even Hebrew. The world's balance hangs by a thread.

Aramaic can be modernized as was Arabic, you think? English is a dual-edged sword worse than greek and italian for insulting since it carries more words borrowed from other languages 'cause it has been a frank language for a long time.
The curse of many nations can be placed in one phrase accidentally. I'm not going to delve into the details.

[mastralvarado]

False. Please examine Medieval and Renaissance Europe, and the modern Middle East, to understand that religion is not the sole factor in the development of nationality.

Both religion and statehood are factors for the development of nationality although religion as it is known today was formerly misticism and not religion as a form of discipline until the Trinitarian church came along. Factors as well as economy and commerce have had heavy influence but the main two have been religion and statehood though disparagingly between pagan and monotheist cultures. As far as I'm concerned the historical medieval Europe has never been the owned by any one single Religion except in the pre-rennaisance Carolingian period and during the subsequent and a priori inquisition which may or may not have lasted for the period of time that the History books construe for a fact.

False, else England, Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand would all be recognized as one country.

Do you realize that these countries failed to separate themselves from their mother nation England? The U.S. did it for religious reasons (during the American revolution possibly) while the other two (Australia & New Zealand) are commonwealths of Britain which were turned into nations by Britain's leave and not to mention many other commonwealths which were remnants of British open imperialism. The power or entity that has allowed these "nations" to appear as such is surely the same entity that wanted to change English from being the frank language to Esperanto which is a completely artificial script. Hence, New Zealand and Australia as well as the United States are all the 'babies' of a new era of private imperialism where Corporations are entire nations in and of themselves. Canada is simply an extension of the U.S. though the non-Federal Government of the U.S. has no jurisdiction there as strongly as in the U.S.A. The federal government has tried to sue Federal Express as well as the Federal Reserve for using the term "Federal" for its operation as a private organization within the U.S. Territory to no avail.

If you think realistically, Nations are what they are because another or more nations recognize their legitimacy there is no denying this Therefore language (both written and oral), once it becomes popular, it is a tool that the powerful use to their advantage.

The errors that you make are so systemic it is difficult to pick just a few for analysis and rebuttal, but this should suffice for a mere beginning.

Oh please just vote on the poll. What use would rebuttin' lil' old me do for anyone except yer ego.

The more American people vote for the fourth choice from the top means that the more the American adults deserve the leaders whom they elected. That's unless they repent and become a theocracy before its too late (which they won't). Ergo, the other possible solution: SFL (Semitic First Language) in order to eradicate Antisemitism towards Jews, Arabs and Semitic language speakers.

[technomage]

Both religion and statehood are factors for the development of nationality

But they are far from the only factors. Economics, culture, ethnicity, political power, even geographical location--all of these factors have played a roll in the development of nationality, and (more importantly) in the development of the concept of nationality.

although religion as it is known today was formerly misticism and not religion as a form of discipline until the Trinitarian church came along.

The existence of ecclesiastical discipline and hierarchy in Judaism, and in Roman pre-Christian beliefs, proves this statement to be incorrect.

As far as I'm concerned the historical medieval Europe has never been the owned by any one single Religion except in the pre-rennaisance Carolingian period and during the subsequent and a priori inquisition which may or may not have lasted for the period of time that the History books construe for a fact.

Minor note: The word you are looking for is not a priori, and your phrasing makes it sound as though the Inquisition was concurrent with the Carolignian period. I am certain that this is not what you mean, and I am not fussing at you, but a lack of clarity in writing can lead to confusion.

More to the point, Europe was religiously unified up until the Reformation, but it is the reformation itself that demonstrates that religion took second place to nationalism. The German "Protestant Princes" were not at all concerned with religion--their primary interest in Lutheranism was that it gave a unifying rallying cry against the political power of Rome and her allies.

One of the primary influences you are either discounting or calling by the name of "statehood" is nationalism--while this is primarily seen as a modern ideology, it did have parallels in the Medieval and Renaissance era, not so much in the idea of the "sovereignty of the people," but in the idea of "L'etat, c'est moi" as expressed by Louis XIV, but recognized long before his birth.

Do you realize that these countries failed to separate themselves from their mother nation England?

False. The only way you can defend such a concept is to distort the meaning of the word "separate" to the point that it no longer means anything. Words are not plasticine: they cannot be stretched and molded to mean what you want them to mean.

If you think realistically, Nations are what they are because another or more nations recognize their legitimacy there is no denying this Therefore language (both written and oral), once it becomes popular, it is a tool that the powerful use to their advantage.

Language means next to nothing politically. If the United States were to convert to Arabic, Esperanto, or KwaZulu tomorrow, we would still be the same culture. Language does not drive the culture, and changing to a different language (while it would be resisted on nationalistic grounds) would not change the underlying cultural dynamics.

Ergo, the other possible solution: SFL (Semitic First Language) in order to eradicate Antisemitism towards Jews, Arabs and Semitic language speakers.

Our converting to a Semitic language would not change the evil of those who choose to hate, mastralvarado. But you must remember that not all Americans are anti-semitic. I have Jewish and Muslim friends, and I hold no animosity towards anyone because of their language, national origin, or place of residence.

[mastralvarado]

But they are far from the only factors. Economics, culture, ethnicity, political power, even geographical location--all of these factors have played a roll in the development of nationality, and (more importantly) in the development of the concept of nationality.

The original concept of the U.S.A. was separation from its mother Nation England because of taxation, need for independence and religious reasons. Hence, State -separation-religion. Little do Americans know that their language is religiously biased toward Latin which was the language the Roman empire reinvented with the help of the institution of a Universal Church and French persons. This lack of knowledge would have no bearing on the concept of nationality but as opposed to the situation in a globalized world where if an nation is fragmented into commonwealths such as Iraq, Alaska, Israel (which are being forced to learn English or stay out of the global game) are constanly pitted into global policy that threatens global peace. The effort that is needed to educate Semitic peoples in order for them to accept ESL by no means is an easy task since in these cultures, language is as important as economics, culture, and political power where as ethnicity is of next to nil of precedence. Therefore, the acceptance of EFL in these countries will never occur since language is tied to religion and to a lesser degree the concept of national identity.

Does the queen expect no terrorist fanatics that damage not innocent civilians? The lack of fairness and balance in media tells volumes of what the media moguls are planning in order to consolidate the U.S. into a 1,000 year Empire of diversity.

The existence of ecclesiastical discipline and hierarchy in Judaism, and in Roman pre-Christian beliefs, proves this statement to be incorrect.

So? The mode of language which respects religion came after the Carolingian renaissance. The term "Religion" is not the same as "religion" in writing although it should be in speech. Therefore my statement stands.

Ask any religious Christian: Why is St. Paul called the apostle of Jesus (S)
while at the same time an the Original Twelve are called Apostles of Jesus (S)? So therefore it does make a difference to type Religion as opposed to religion not in the first word of a sentence in Latin based scripts such as English.

Minor note: The word you are looking for is not a priori, and your phrasing makes it sound as though the Inquisition was concurrent with the Carolignian period. I am certain that this is not what you mean, and I am not fussing at you, but a lack of clarity in writing can lead to confusion.

This is just a theory but I believe that the origins of the Maltese language arose from the sudden appearance of Islam after the Universal Church had been established. This theory uses other theories which are not at all conspiracies that establish that the calendarization of the current Gregorian Calendar have inserted in it 200-300 years of false events. The appearance of Maltese which is an Arabic derived tongue with Latin script can be traced closed to the same time of the rise of Islam. Therefore, the historical Carolingian period might have been made up and even Muslim historians fell for it (Abasids). To my knowledge, the Hijra A.H. was synchronized using not astronomical data but the reference Roman Calendar in use at that time and after the rise of Maltese since that conflict with Islam and the Church resulted in the creation for the archaic forms of all modern Romance and Germanic language since they were not in standard written form because of the warring, vulgar and pagan lifestyle of non Roman tribes (similar to that of Mongols.)

All this means that the inquisition did not stop until about "1200" contrary to what history books teach. The Crusades started again throughout the middle ages with Spaniards being advisers to Caliphs thanks to Turkish influence.

More to the point, Europe was religiously unified up until the Reformation, but it is the reformation itself that demonstrates that religion took second place to nationalism.

The moment Maltese was created it became the epitome of religious unification between heretics and the Church which unilaterally proclaimed the Trinity as the only way to salvation. This is the first Religion that is known to man since capitalization came around that time unbeknown before: a mix between Greek script and Roman script.

The German "Protestant Princes" were not at all concerned with religion--their primary interest in Lutheranism was that it gave a unifying rallying cry against the political power of Rome and her allies.

This corroborates my hypothesis that there was never any great schism between oriental and occidental churches: Those churches that used Greek and those that used Latin for teaching and mass. The reformers knew that the Trinity was the real heretic teaching.

One of the primary influences you are either discounting or calling by the name of "statehood" is nationalism--while this is primarily seen as a modern ideology, it did have parallels in the Medieval and Renaissance era, not so much in the idea of the "sovereignty of the people," but in the idea of "L'etat, c'est moi" as expressed by Louis XIV, but recognized long before his birth.

Nationalism is just a fancy way of calling statehood something proactive. The trinity is a proactive concept that is imbued into the Latin. Similar to the Gregorian Calendar nations did not use capitalization at some point in history they all adopted it gradually but not over a period spanning more than 100 years because it was in their best interests to be in good faith with the Church. Lutherans recognized the falsity of this Verity and therefore separated thinking that their language had not be changed. Even the French are to be blamed for this influence of Maltese into Germanic languages thanks to the -eour suffix which did not exist prior to the formalization of their language into textbook lexicon.

French is so difficult to learn because it was the primary vehicle which was used to conceive of much of the Proper names changed in order to avoid persecution by the Islamic Caliphate during their period of absolute independence. Ever since the Arabs lost in the invasion to Italy most of Europe has been at war with Islam. The Middle Age's Rennaissance flourished after "1200" because of this war for domination of the known world.

False. The only way you can defend such a concept is to distort the meaning of the word "separate" to the point that it no longer means anything. Words are not plasticine: they cannot be stretched and molded to mean what you want them to mean.

Words don't mean anything if one does not do/act about what one preaches.

There is no full separation of church and state in the U.S. because after the American Revolution England gained controlled of the U.S. economy via several banks in New York. These were/are Jew controlled banks regardless of their name change. When the U.S. separated from England it made war using all persons and no person was made to wage war save to gain their freedom (such as slaves).

The reasons for the separation between England and the U.S. were religious and economical. The U.S. colonies had control over their economy when separation of church and state was drafted. Now, the U.S. is not in control of their economy but the Federal Reserve (a private corporation of English and International bankers) does. As well as public health services; these are in control and financed by the English bankers who create money out of "thin air" in order to promote the prison system of the U.S. Most Americans don't know they are living in a prison.

The European Union's Euro is also a currency that is backed by nothing but "faith".

The U.S. did not fully separate State from Church. An individual that speaks English as a first language therefore cannot be guaranteed that his speech has separated itself from religion based on the theory that the french and the Romans, influenced by borrowed words from the Arabic derived Maltese that weigh heavily upon organized internationalists, have been included in common speech. These words which I know for a fact that are religiously biased are "danger", "persecuteur/persecutor", "prevent", "fix", "peligro", "periclitar", "god/gott/got", "I have", and "harass", "hazard", "school", "hospital", "police" and possibly others.

I hope that any other speaker of germanic and romance languages can please verify and elaborate these collections of words that come from the Maltese "peryclu" and "fixkel" greek. Others of lesser importance for me are 'skola', and 'pulizija' and possibly the Arabic - Parsi conflation "ghandi" as well as other well known Germanic pagan words such as "gott".

Therefore the recurrence of pseudo-Greek elements in Maltese shows the partial injecting of these terms into the vocabulary of the major languages especially with regards to the welfare services such as schools, governments, police and hospitals. The essential services that run in modern economies.

Notice the Knights of Malta are called "Hospitaleurs", a word which might be derived from French. Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts use these symbols (fleur-de-Lys)in their insignia. Do it might appear as a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy these symbols were extensively used throughout history. By Middle Ages, European alchemists such as Paracelsus using engravings in order to tell the future world something [2]. I don't know what it is but I'm guessing it has to do with separation of God and human affairs. Something similar to religion and state separateness. So despite what historians say about the Carolingian Rennaisance and the Trinity there was a British Open conspiracy which distinguished between Mayuscule and Minuscule letters. Hindu Historians corroborate this fact.

Prophecies of Paracelsus by J.K. (1915)

Paracelsus, a renowned scholar who is known for his chemical and alchemical writings, may have meant this not only as a set of predictions about the path of the Reformation, but as an allegory of the evolution of the soul. This would not be surprising, as other authors of the period cloaked arcane messages in almost impenetrable layers of symbolism to escape eccelsiastical scrutiny
source

© source where applicable

This symbol (Fleur-de-Lys) permeates many flags in the past and of the present (notice Scouts). The reason for this graven image is somehow tied to Malta because this symbol was in its flag before Malta became part of the European Union. The Knights of Cincinnati, which are a powerful organization in the U.S. also use this symbol.

During the siege of Malta between Arabs and the the Normans in "1090" the Arabs lost and there was an agreement between all parties that everything possible to reduce the Semitic peoples should be set in place using a collection of institutions dedicated to the welfare of civilians and soldiers of a war as well as a collection of other preventive measures with justification from false prophecy (Septuagint, Book of Daniel's Greek term "obstruct") in order for the Trinitarian Church to remain the dominant player in hierarchic political Religion. Before this church religion was not political were as there was no a alliance between a Ruler of an Empire and religious leaders. The Lutheran movement was an attempt to separate from this politically biased Church but has only resulted in further fragmentation of the Christian movement which Islam seeks not to extinguish but to put in its place apolitically.

Atheists, being staunch supporters of separation of religion and state, instead of trying to eliminate "god" from the Schools should try to eliminate many of these words from the vocabulary since they were pidginized into current vocabularies to embed pagan and religious beliefs into speech. I write this because it is clear that ignominy and atheist minorities are concerned about religious and national separation and not because I think that Atheists are evil: it's just that their brains do not process things like people who do believe in the supernatural.

Language means next to nothing politically. If the United States were to convert to Arabic, Esperanto, or KwaZulu tomorrow, we would still be the same culture. Language does not drive the culture, and changing to a different language (while it would be resisted on nationalistic grounds) would not change the underlying cultural dynamics.

Are you an atheist? You should be concerned if your children are made o mention God in the national anthem. What was it that you mentioned again?

Our converting to a Semitic language would not change the evil of those who choose to hate, mastralvarado. But you must remember that not all Americans are anti-semitic. I have Jewish and Muslim friends, and I hold no animosity towards anyone because of their language, national origin, or place of residence.

Oh this is so true, but we should all try to retrace our current evolution of language in order to better understand our history better so that we don't make the same mistakes again, using all the possible sciences and reliable sources available at the time.

Let's do something that no other entity in history has done and let's start planting a vineyard of different seed in order to prevent another Major Depression and possible future war that may loom in the not-so-distant future. Ethnicity of Semitic people's should be of no concern in eradicating anti-semitism nor for the founding of a nation such as the U.S.A.. Look at the example of Paracelsus, part of the reform movement.

[2] Prophecies of Paracelsus extracted from "http://sacred-texts.com/pro/pop/pop07htm"

[Little Shepherd]

Little do Americans know that their language is religiously biased toward Latin which was the language the Roman empire reinvented with the help of the institution of a Universal Church.

Um, no. That's quite possibly the most ignorant thing I've heard in a long time. English has only an indirect connection to Latin through its heavy French influence (due to France at one point conquering England for a time, and French becoming the language of the upper class of England). This connection is not for religious reasons.

[mastralvarado]

Um, no. That's quite possibly the most ignorant thing I've heard in a long time. English has only an indirect connection to Latin through its heavy French influence (due to France at one point conquering England for a time, and French becoming the language of the upper class of England). This connection is not for religious reasons.

Reread my post. I changed it not after you informed me of this Scout's honor.