I received this as an email. I suspect it will probably annoy some posters but despite its harsh tone I think the email says what a lot of people think. Substitue The United States, Canada, Denmark, The Netherlands for Australia and the letter still speaks to people.

Finally a country with common sense and balls Posted by Chris on June 8, 2006, 8:46 amUser logged in as: 076664.163.26.147 THREE CHEERS FOR AUSTRALIA I wish the leaders of our country would take a stand like Australia..... Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks. A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown. Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state and its laws were made by parliament. "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you," he said on national television. "I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia, one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, that is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option, "Costello said. Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off". "Basically, people who don't want to be Australians, and they don't want to live by Australian values and understand them, well then they can basically clear off," he said. Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. AMERICA and EUROPE..... ARE YOU LISTENING? Quote: IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It ! I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians. However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the "politically correct" crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia. However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand. This idea of Australia being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle. This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom. We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, then learn the language! Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push but a fact because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, Because God is part of our culture. We will accept your beliefs and will not question why, all we ask is that you accept ours and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us. If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like "A Fair Go", then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. By all means keep your culture but do not force it on others. This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this, but once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, "THE RIGHT TO LEAVE." If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.

Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state and its laws were made by parliament. "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you," he said on national television.

I'd love to see the American political leadersip deliver this message to all the Religious Right types in this country; ---- America is a secular state and its laws were made by Congress..... "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Christian law or a theocratic state, then America is not for you"

I'd love to see the American political leadership deliver this message to all the Religious Right types in this country; ---- America is a secular state and its laws were made by Congress..... "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Christian law or a theocratic state, then America is not for you"

I came here, because of the respect for the law, and for the values it holds, and for being a country not run by any religion, (have serious doubts that the current administration holds these values, but anyway things could change in 2008). I speak Spanish, but I use English when I talk to English speaking people, I don't expect them to learn my language, I did and still do learn theirs everyday. I am catholic, but I accept other free ways of thinking about religion. US is mostly protestant, but there is freedom of religion, I won't be beheaded for not being protestant.

Have done like "when you are in Rome, do as Romans do" ... And encourage others to freely do.

Things change through time, it wasn't English when the first settlers came, and probably it will be bilingual in the future, but now we, foreigners, should accept what the natives do, as a free society ...

If ever the US becomes (don't think so), a Christian Taliban state, then there is always another place, but that is not so today, so I stay ....
.

Three cheers for Australia. May the U.S. follow suit.

Australie are no t doing theright thing.they are discriminent to muslims. many people they lhave différentes kulturer live i n the same country like danmark,Netherlandern,Canada.Belgique. everybody mus t obey law.if they dont obet the law then throw them out.

The Aussies have every right to discriminate against anyone they care to. It's their country. It wasn't all that long ago that blacks, of any nationality, were prohibited from even visiting that country, let alone take up residence there.

It's one thing to recommend to someone to leave the country for not wanting to assimilate. But to force someone out of the country because of what he may say or believe, as I'm sure a lot of people would advocate, is despicable.

The Aussies have basically said, if you wish to live in our country do not try to live seperately from us with your own laws. You have chosen to move to our country and if you will not or cannot conform to our culture you are free to leave. I applaud them for saying that.

Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, hoy, hoy, hoy!!!!!!!

The Aussies have every right to discriminate against anyone they care to. It's their country. It wasn't all that long ago that blacks, of any nationality, were prohibited from even visiting that country, let alone take up residence there.

KKK missed that opportunity, to move to the kind of heaven on earth they want to live in ....

Don't mistake presentations of policy for advocacy of that same policy.

The Aussies have basically said, if you wish to live in our country do not try to live seperately from us with your own laws. You have chosen to move to our country and if you will not or cannot conform to our culture you are free to leave. I applaud them for saying that.That's all well and good. But in many people, sentiments of xenophobia and racism lie behind such ideas. Comments like the ones made by these Australian officials only go to reinforce those sentiments, even if they were not intended to do so. The thoughts going through the feeble minds of some people won't be "Immigrants should assimilate into the societies they move into." Rather, they will be along the lines of "Darn (racial pejorative), Why don't you go back to your own country!"

That's all well and good. But in many people, sentiments of xenophobia and racism lie behind such ideas. Comments like the ones made by these Australian officials only go to reinforce those sentiments, even if they were not intended to do so. The thoughts going through the feeble minds of some people won't be "Immigrants should assimilate into the societies they move into." Rather, they will be along the lines of "Darn (racial pejorative), Why don't you go back to your own country!"

Damn right!!! ... Not everybody stop and thinks, most people just get carried away, they are the ones who go forward, front line, while the agitators stay behind pushing these masses of brutes, xenophobes, and racists.

Most people always talk about RIGHT AND WRONG or GOOD AND BAD, but they don't see the differences of RIGHT AND GOOD.
It will be good for me to expel "these people", but is it right to do it?

So, what the two of you are saying is that the government must direct its comments to the least common denominator of society. Since a few people might misinterpret what was said the government must kowtow to those immigrants who can not or will not assimilate into Australian society and who wish to set up a seperate shadow government and society within the country.

Wouldn't it be better for the government to say to those individuals who would use the occassion to attack innocent immigrants that they will be dealth with harshly?

Nothing in the government's words was directed toward immigrants who wish to become Australians and assimilate into Australian life. The words were directed solely toward those who wish to come to the country by choice and then refuse to become part of the country.

I like this thread posted by Frogger. It is what must be done to have peace in the world.

I have always said, to some peoples disagreement, that if you do not like the U.S., get the hell out of here!

Maybe aptitude towards criminal, disgusting acts lies in the genes...

Nah.
Criminals are made, not born.

Criminals are both made and born.

That's an interesting theory Frogger.

Can you please cite some examples of a few born criminals?

The only one I can (possibly) think of is Louis "Lepke" Buchalter, from a fine family of upper-class Jewish folks who went on to become head of Murder, Inc.

But his homelife growing up as a kid is virtually unknown.

PS Remember what Father Flanagan (founder of Boys' Town) said.."There is no such thing as a bad boy."

Can you please cite some examples of a few born criminals?
Even if you did, it is debatable whether they were "born criminals."

It is much simpler to discuss our biology and its behavior in society. We can discern from that, that there are a certain segment of the population bound to commit violent acts (see the old wives' tale about appearances of violent crimes with the full moon). You're not going to be able to sit down and tell me that the actions of some of our most notorious serial killers is purely from nurture, not partially due to nature. I find it a completely absurd notion that people would be born completely free of propensities to commit certain crimes, especially if they had a family history of addiction, abuse, and crime.

Look at it this way: Take an interesting serial killer (because those are usually seen as the most vicious of criminals), and look at the crimes he/she committed. Most times, these killers do not act out in this manner to steal from the victim, or get back at the victim; it is apparent from my understanding of these crimes that it is pretty much nonsensical bloodlust.

In other words, you're not going to kill ten people arbitrarily (with no motivation or reason) without a craving to do so.

This is the same as anything else. Its a combinatio of nature and nurture. Why is it that people wish to be so devicive as to force one choice over the other.

You can be born with a prediliction towards violence, theft, murder etc...
but it is influenced by the persons upbringing and willpower.

You can be born with a prediliction towards violence, theft, murder etc...
but it is influenced by the persons upbringing and willpower.
Correct, 500.

Even if you did, it is debatable whether they were "born criminals."

It is much simpler to discuss our biology and its behavior in society. We can discern from that, that there are a certain segment of the population bound to commit violent acts (see the old wives' tale about appearances of violent crimes with the full moon). You're not going to be able to sit down and tell me that the actions of some of our most notorious serial killers is purely from nurture, not partially due to nature. I find it a completely absurd notion that people would be born completely free of propensities to commit certain crimes, especially if they had a family history of addiction, abuse, and crime.

Look at it this way: Take an interesting serial killer (because those are usually seen as the most vicious of criminals), and look at the crimes he/she committed. Most times, these killers do not act out in this manner to steal from the victim, or get back at the victim; it is apparent from my understanding of these crimes that it is pretty much nonsensical bloodlust.

In other words, you're not going to kill ten people arbitrarily (with no motivation or reason) without a craving to do so.

This is a topic of furious debate amongst criminologists....nature vs nurture. I tend to think it's a bit of both, with a huge preponderance leaning towards nurture.

The theory of the "bad seed"--that is, a devils'- spawn child raised in a fine law abiding family has pretty much been debunked. IOW, there is no such thing. Case in point--Mary Bell of 1960's England, a truly depraved young girl who viciously killed 2 young boys by strangling, then taunted the authorities about it.

Yet, look at her background--raised by a prostitute, drunken mother, no dad, the mom forcing her to entertain men for money when she was less than 5 years old, regular beatings..... By god, who could she not be a monster?

Yet, OTOH, there's many an instance of children equally viciously abused who went on to become good citizens. Like guerrilla said, perhaps a stronger will is what is required here.

Also, speaking of the so-called "motiveless" crime--there is always a motive, bizarre tho it may seem to normal-thinking and acting folks.

You're not going to be able to sit down and tell me that the actions of some of our most notorious serial killers is purely from nurture, not partially due to nature. I find it a completely absurd notion that people would be born completely free of propensities to commit certain crimes, especially if they had a family history of addiction, abuse, and crime.

.

Evak, while we're on the topic of serial killers, (and they are hardly representative of all criminals, I know)--- I cannot think of a single one who did not have an exceedingly abusive home life--not a single one.

Also, speaking of the so-called "motiveless" crime--there is always a motive, bizarre tho it may seem to normal-thinking and acting folks.
I would say the motive of killing for the sake of killing, murdering for the sake of necrophilia (sorry for that image), or some other vile form of motivation, falls under the umbrella of carnal desire, not a full-fledged reason for the act. By that sort of thinking, I could get naked right now and dance around in the streets (sorry for more bad imagery) and there would have to be a reason in your mind aside from the simple idea that "I wanted to."
The theory of the "bad seed"--that is, a devils'- spawn child raised in a fine law abiding family has pretty much been debunked.
How can you be sure that it is not true?

And for the record, I've never been a nudist.

Evak, while we're on the topic of serial killers, (and they are hardly representative of all criminals, I know)--- I cannot think of a single one who did not have an exceedingly abusive home life--not a single one.
Keep thinking then. :D

[QUOTE=Evakian]I would say the motive of killing for the sake of killing, murdering for the sake of necrophilia (sorry for that image), or some other vile form of motivation, falls under the umbrella of carnal desire, not a full-fledged reason for the act. QUOTE]

It would be more properly called the desire for dominance and control.That is their true motive. Also, some researchers say, it's a way to "get Back" at a society they neither understand nor fit into --in other words, they are the misfits of society.

The bad seed debunked--I will list sources for that when I have access to my crime books, hopefully tomorrow.:)

[QUOTE=Evakian]Keep thinking then. :D[/QUOTE

Please name one. There's been hundreds and they get all the press. Surely you can name one?

...Evak frantically looks through dozens of crime books, hoping to find a serial killer who was raised by Father Flanagan and Mrs. Brady.:D

Ahh! Threadjacking! Did nobody get what I meant or is this topic far more interesting?

Most serial killers killers are white males in their twenties and thirties. The most violent and disgusting atrocities known to man were commited by white males, most in their twenties and thirties(or it at least started then). Europeans(anthropologically speaking) almost naturally seem to be more prone to do bad things.

So, what the two of you are saying is that the government must direct its comments to the least common denominator of society. Since a few people might misinterpret what was said the government must kowtow to those immigrants who can not or will not assimilate into Australian society and who wish to set up a seperate shadow government and society within the country.
No, they don't have to kowtow to them. But if they're not going to actually take action and throw those people out, then those comments serve no purpose but to add fuel to anti-immigrant sentiments in their society.

Wouldn't it be better for the government to say to those individuals who would use the occassion to attack innocent immigrants that they will be dealth with harshly?Yes, it would be nice if they did that. But racism doesn't only exist among the few that would carry out violent attacks. It can take the form of verbal insults, unreasonable racial profiling, glass ceilings, or a general attitude of dislike and unacceptance towards immigrants. Such things are a greater concern as they are far more common than violent crimes, and are not only carried out by the least common denominator of society. And since they are not illegal the government cannot do anything but discourage them. However, the comments made by those Australian officials would have the exact opposite effect.

Let me also say, as I think I've said before, that assimilation is a two-way process. An immigrant can do everything possible to adapt to and become part of the society he has immigrated to. But he will still always be seen by most of that society as an immigrant, and not as a "real" American, Australian, or Brit. He can therefore never actually assimilate, no matter how hard he tries.

[QUOTE=Evakian]Keep thinking then. :D[/QUOTE

Please name one. There's been hundreds and they get all the press. Surely you can name one?

I folllowed the Jeffery Dahmer trial a little when it was in the news, and I don't recall anything about him having an "exceedingly abusive home life". I seem to remember that there were some indications his parents were less than perfect, but not "exceedingly abusive".

No, they don't have to kowtow to them. But if they're not going to actually take action and throw those people out, then those comments serve no purpose but to add fuel to anti-immigrant sentiments in their society.

Yes, it would be nice if they did that. But racism doesn't only exist among the few that would carry out violent attacks. It can take the form of verbal insults, unreasonable racial profiling, glass ceilings, or a general attitude of dislike and unacceptance towards immigrants. Such things are a greater concern as they are far more common than violent crimes, and are not only carried out by the least common denominator of society. And since they are not illegal the government cannot do anything but discourage them. However, the comments made by those Australian officials would have the exact opposite effect.

Let me also say, as I think I've said before, that assimilation is a two-way process. An immigrant can do everything possible to adapt to and become part of the society he has immigrated to. But he will still always be seen by most of that society as an immigrant, and not as a "real" American, Australian, or Brit. He can therefore never actually assimilate, no matter how hard he tries.

Nice post Jester. Excellent points.

[QUOTE=rendova]

I folllowed the Jeffery Dahmer trial a little when it was in the news, and I don't recall anything about him having an "exceedingly abusive home life". I seem to remember that there were some indications his parents were less than perfect, but not "exceedingly abusive".

Vile--I was wondering if someone was going to bring up Dahmer!

The accepted story is he had an "apparently normal" childhood.

This story, it should be noted, mainly comes from his father, Lionel, who, as a youngster, was fascinated with fire and enjoyed playing with explosives. He later made the, IMO, ludicrous claim that little Jeffery was "normal" until he had an operation for a double hernia. He also laughably and self-servingly blamed Jeff's mom, with whom he bitterly fought all during Jeff's childhood ( they were also heavy drinkers) for "hysteria" during her pregnancy with Jeff.

What is know is this--very little is actually known about Jeff's childhood. What is known, besides the above, is that Lionel also killed Jeffery's pets--some wild animals he kept under a porch.

Evak--the bad seed theory--please see this books:

The Blank Slate: the Modern Denial of Human Nature Steven Pinker

The Serial Killer Files Harold Schecter

Blibblob--interesting theory about Europeans and violence. It'd be an interesting project to go back say a few hundred years and compare violent crime stats coming out of the Orient or, say, Africa, with Europe and America.

No, they don't have to kowtow to them. But if they're not going to actually take action and throw those people out, then those comments serve no purpose but to add fuel to anti-immigrant sentiments in their society.

Yes, it would be nice if they did that. But racism doesn't only exist among the few that would carry out violent attacks. It can take the form of verbal insults, unreasonable racial profiling, glass ceilings, or a general attitude of dislike and unacceptance towards immigrants. Such things are a greater concern as they are far more common than violent crimes, and are not only carried out by the least common denominator of society. And since they are not illegal the government cannot do anything but discourage them. However, the comments made by those Australian officials would have the exact opposite effect.

Let me also say, as I think I've said before, that assimilation is a two-way process. An immigrant can do everything possible to adapt to and become part of the society he has immigrated to. But he will still always be seen by most of that society as an immigrant, and not as a "real" American, Australian, or Brit. He can therefore never actually assimilate, no matter how hard he tries.

Jester, the onus is always on the immigrant and rightfully so. The immigrant has chosen to leave a country and emmigrate to a new one. There must be something about the new country that caused him to pick it.

While there may be the negative feelings attached to immigrants that you mentioned they are only exaccerbated by an immigrant's resistance to assimilitation. When immigrants do not learn the language and customs of their new country, when they demand seperate laws for their group, when they keep themselves seperate and often as some sort of group deserving of special treatment they increase negative feelings directed toward themselves.

If I were to emigrate to the US or Oz,I would go there in the hope of someday becoming an American or Australian Citizen,and hopefully do my best to contribute positively to my adopted country.If I wanted to go there and kick up shit,id fully expect to be dragged off to the airport......all countrys should adopt this attitude,I aint sure what you do with homegrowm radicals tho.

The same thing you do with black sheep family member. You love them and try to correct them. Emigrees are not family members though and if they act like black sheep they should be tossed out of the fold.

Theres two seperate problems for the two countrys mentioned ''generally''. In the US,Mexicans seem to have this notion that they must re Latin the country,especially in the South and West,In Australia it seems to be a religious thing,were some Muslims see the country they live in as their enemy.

Two countries. Two problems. One solution. Remove them from the country, forcibly if necessary.

I aint sure what you do with homegrowm radicals tho.The same thing you do with black sheep family member. You love them and try to correct them.Frogger loves FT!!!

You should give him a big cybersmooch!

Theres two separate problems for the two countries mentioned ''generally''. In the USA, Mexicans seem to have this notion that they must re Latin the country,especially in the South and West,In Australia it seems to be a religious thing,were some Muslims see the country they live in as their enemy.

There is no AGENDA, and I don't think that anybody from Mexico or any Spanish speaking country is trying to "re-Latin" the USA, and why is it happening in the South and the West, because of their numbers in those areas. Besides that large area had, since it was taken away from Mexico or better to say lost in that war, lots of Spanish speaking people living there when, for them, all of a sudden the borders where re-written. Again I must say that they learn some English, but their numbers allow them to find communication in their native language, therefore their learning is not such a priority. History has lots of examples on this. Why did "Latin" went from a people's language to an almost extinct one?, because the numbers of the "immigrants" or "invaders" were in the large numbers. Whether the English want it or not, the USA will be a bilingual country in the future. I wonder why several people believe that it is bad thing to happen. Look at Switzerland, such a little country where people speak three languages (German, French and Italian).

Now, many of their children (from Spanish speaking immigrants) hardly speak any Spanish, so the second generation was assimilated, personally I find it an enriching situation that someone speaks more than one language, and if I were young again and have my children born in this country, I would have them learn both languages on an equal basis, and it wouldn't be because of learning their parents language, but as a means of plain learning and be fluent in both languages, and at school I would have encourage them to take French as a third language. But this idea must be just mine, I love languages, and I wish I had taken more French... Did learn a little Russian when working with thousands of them for 8 years, but I was already past my 30's, kinda late for a language to really stick in someone's head (brain).

Some comments here in the Forum come from people who are not here, and for those whose language is English and live here also have the wrong idea as to why Spanish is gaining grounds in the USA. You need to find this information from those who have come here from countries like mine.
You'll find that there are those who have learned an acceptable amount of English and have their reasons, and those who haven't have, their reasons too.

Frogger loves FT!!!

You should give him a big cybersmooch!

I neither hate nor dislike him and even if I did, there is no justification for deporting him even if he says thinks I don't like.

There are actually four languages in Switzerland, Cromagnon. You forgot Romansch.

Ireland is a bilingual country.200 years ago,speaking Irish was a hanging offence,as a result the language nearly died,luckily its back and thriving,Mexicans speaking Spanish in the USA is no big deal,although its starting to make inroads in gov.papers,which may be the next step up,it may depend on the motive behind it..

If they wish to speak Spanish among themselves, fine. When they expect me to learn Sp[anish or the government to conduct any of its business in Spanish that is an entirely different matter.

I think I read somewhere that way back in 1776 there was a split vote over the question of US offical language and that Washington swung it for English over German,somebody put me right on this thanks..

If they wish to speak Spanish among themselves, fine. When they expect me to learn Spanish or the government to conduct any of its business in Spanish that is an entirely different matter.

I agree with you, but the government thing is not there yet (having their forms in both languages) because the number of people speaking Spanish isn't that big yet. But then, what would happen when the numbers go up to 50% or higher... the government can't turn the face the other way anymore. It's all about time and numbers ..., and lawmakers .....

You also have the private sector with the Malls posting in both languages, the thing is that they want their business to get the Spanish speaking people to shop there too. In Indianapolis, and this was 3 or 4 years ago, Meijer announced they were hiring bilingual people, and posting signs in both languages. So I believe they find it realistic. And one way or another and not always from the Spanish speaking people, changes continue to happen.

It infuriates me when I see signs in this country posted in languages other than English outside of an airport terminal or other public transportation site. I'm not the one required to learn a new language - new immigrants to this country are.
When I was assigned to countries outside of the U.S., I learned enough of the host nations' language to communicate. That's all they're being told to do.

That sounds fair to me.

most country have mor e then one officielle language.Canada have9,Finland3, Norway 2,Sweden 6,Suisse 4, Russia,china an d India more then 20. there
ar e no big deal you just hav e to learn them.

It infuriates me when I see signs in this country posted in languages other than English outside of an airport terminal or other public transportation site. I'm not the one required to learn a new language - new immigrants to this country are.
When I was assigned to countries outside of the U.S., I learned enough of the host nations' language to communicate. That's all they're being told to do.

Those countries do not have the number of foreign people the USA has, and if it infurites you so much drink a cold beer...

I completely disagree. You want to live here? You came from another country to the U.S. for a better life? It's up to you & yours to learn the ways of this nation.

I'd love to see the American political leadersip deliver this message to all the Religious Right types in this country; ---- America is a secular state and its laws were made by Congress..... "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Christian law or a theocratic state, then America is not for you"


agreed. but i like to think why didn't the invaders of amerika and australia and other places didn't conform to the natives ways of those areas? the natives didn't want YOU/THEM to conform to them, but just have respect, and live and let live.

radicals, right wingers, and such of any society are creating more problems then they think they may be solving.

put all radicals and such in one place and let them kill each other off. they won't listen to common sense or have respect for others.

Agreed. But I like to think why didn't the invaders of América and Australia and other places didn't conform to the natives ways of those areas? The natives didn't want YOU/THEM to conform to them, but just have respect, and live and let live.

Haven't read such wise words so far in this Forum ...

Europeans who went and invaded Africa changed the ways and languages of the natives, didn't happen the other way... Europeans who went to Australia didn't learn the language of the natives from there either, and same thing happened all over this continent of América. So instead of the having a USA speaking Cherokee, or Sioux (or any of the other native languages) one finds English and Spanish among other languages.

Spanish was always in this country even before the USA as a country ever existed. The first waves of immigrants (invaders) from European countries other than Spain or Portugal started nearly 150 years after Spain with Columbus arrived to América.

Now that we have our clear ideas about the languages, and knowing that we won't agree, let's talk about the other aspects of the USA culture, if it is that the USA has a culture of it's own (different from McDonald's, Pepsi Cola, or Coca Cola)... How about Religion, this country has a higher percentage of Protestants than Catholics do, or any other religion, so is it that the new comers have to become Protestants too? Because it is part of the culture of USA (brought from Europe)... Are we going to have to hear other die hard fundamentalists stating that all the immigrants have to become Protestants along with learning English?

Freedom of religion is one of the foundations of this nation.

I think I read somewhere that way back in 1776 there was a split vote over the question of US offical language and that Washington swung it for English over German,somebody put me right on this thanks..

Paul, that is a commonly believed Urban Legend. Here is what actually happened.

In April, 1987, an election judge from Missouri wrote to Ann Landers citing the following excerpt from the local Election Manual to support the argument that everyone's vote counts: "In 1776, one vote gave America the English language instead of German." The statement is not strictly true, as many of Landers' more alert readers quickly pointed out. The vote in question did not take place. However, language became a political and an emotional issue as early as the 1750s, when British settlers in Pennsylvania began to fear and resent the fact that a third of their fellow Pennsylvanians were German speakers.
Since that time, American nativists have sought to eradicate minority languages and discourage bilingualism wherever it could be found: in Maine and Louisiana, California and New Mexico, Hawaii and Puerto Rico, as well as in Pennsylvania. Complaints about Germans as well as other non-English-speakers became all too common in the last quarter of the 19th century, and again during and after World War I, when the fear of immigrants and their languages prompted protective English-only legislation. Many Americans considered nonanglophones to be less than human: in 1904 a railroad president told a congressional hearing on the mistreatment of immigrant workers, "These workers don't suffer--they don't even speak English."(Shanahan, 1989.) Today as well there is opposition to nonanglophones and bilinguals--this time not Germans but Hispanic and Asian Americans. The result is the proposed English Language Amendment (ELA), a Constitutional amendment making English the official language of the United States.
Despite the latest rehearsal in Ann Landers' advice column of the myth that German had once come close to replacing English in the United States, Americans have never had a legally-established official language. The so-called German vote did not take place in 1776, and it had nothing to do with privileging German over English. The legend that it did, which has gone around since at least the 1850s, was spread initially by propagandists celebrating German contributions to American culture. It has since been taken over by those who claim that the English language in the United States is an endangered species. The story of the German Vote is occasionally trotted out by ELA supporters to demonstrate the power of ethnic groups to subvert national unity and to warn Americans that although the German threat to English has been defused, the Spanish one has not.
The events whose misinterpretation gave rise to the legend of the German vote occurred in 1795, though the date is frequently changed to the more patriotically crucial year of 1776. As is characteristic of such stories, what actually occurred is not entirely clear. What is clear is that Congress never considered replacing English with any other language or giving any other tongue equal status with English. In the 18th century there were rumors that a few Brit-bashing superpatriots campaigned to have the new nation drop English in favor of Hebrew, French, or Greek, considered in the late 18th century to be the languages of God, rationality, and democracy, respectively. But the desire to found a New Eden rather than a New Babel assured that the United States would be united both legally and socially under a single language, and that language would be English. Noah Webster championed a dialect-free Federal English based on his spelling book. John Adams rightly predicted that English would become the next world language. And Roger Sherman of Connecticut is reported to have urged Americans to retain English and make the British speak Greek. (See Baron, 1982.) Despite the solid position of English both initially and throughout American history, the legend of the German vote persists.
THE GERMAN VOTE
On January 13, 1795, Congress considered a proposal, not to give German any official status, but merely to print the federal laws in German as well as English. During the debate, a motion to adjourn failed by one vote. The final vote rejecting the translation of federal laws, which took place one month later, is not recorded.
The translation proposal itself originated as a petition to Congress on March 20, 1794, from a group of Germans living in Augusta, Virginia. A House committee responding to that petition recommended publishing sets of the federal statutes in English and distributing them to the states, together with the publication of three thousand sets of laws in German, "for the accommodation of such German citizens of the United States, as do not understand the English language." (American State Papers ser. 10, v. 1:114). According to the succinct report in the Aurora Gazette, "A great variety of plans were proposed, but none that seemed to meet the general sense of the House." (22 January, 1795, p. 3).
A vote to adjourn and sit again on the recommendation failed, 42 to 41, but there is no reason to believe from this close vote that more than token support existed for publishing the laws in German. The vote to adjourn seems to have been interpreted by the House as a vote of no confidence both in the committee's recommendation to translate the laws and in its recommendation on the distribution of the sets of laws once they were published in English. While there is no record of debate on the translation provision that day, if sentiment on the issue in Congress was anything like sentiment in Pennsylvania, translation was probably opposed by a substantial majority of the representatives.
On the other hand, the committee's plan for distributing the sets of laws did provoke some strong disagreement in the House. After objections to the latter were aired, a new committee was formed and asked to report again, and the House agreed to adjourn. It is from the close interim vote, not on an actual bill but on adjournment, that the so-called "German vote" legend has been built.
One month later, on February 16, 1795, the House once again considered the question of promulgating the laws, and among the issues, once again, was translating the federal statutes into German. This time some of the actual debate has been preserved. Rep. Thomas Hartley of Pennsylvania argued that "it was perhaps desirable that the Germans should learn English; but if it is our object to give present information, we should do it in the language understood. The Germans who are advanced in years cannot learn our language in a day. It would be generous in the Government to inform those persons. Many honest men, in the late disturbances [the Whiskey Rebellion], were led away by misrepresentation; ignorance of the laws laid them open to deception."
Rep. William V. Murray of Maryland, who opposed translating the laws into German, countered "that it had never been the custom in England to translate the laws into Welsh or Gaelic, and yet the great bulk of the Welsh, and some hundred thousands of people in Scotland, did not understand a word of English." (Annals of Congress 4:1228-29) The House finally approved publication of current and future federal statutes in English only. The bill was agreed to by the Senate and signed by President Washington the following month.
The January vote on adjournment is sometimes known as "the Muhlenberg Vote," after the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Pennsylvania's Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, a Federalist who spoke German with difficulty, so it is claimed, and who was at any rate a member of a prominent family of assimilated Germans who favored English as the language of education and religion (Dorpalen 1942, 178). Although the roll call vote does not survive, tradition has it that Muhlenberg stepped down to cast the deciding negative, thereby dooming German in America to minority-language status. Tradition notwithstanding, too much weight should not be given to the fact that the Speaker was not in the chair on this occasion. It was common for the Speaker to step down, and Muhlenburg did so on many other occasions during the Third Congress. Even a positive vote on the adjournment issue could not have led to approval of German translations of the laws, a concession which the Congress has repeatedly refused to make ever since.
Nonetheless, Muhlenberg was blamed for selling out German language interests by Franz LÔher, whose 1847 "History and Achievements of the Germans in America" presents a garbled though frequently cited account of what is supposed to have happened. LÔher places the crucial language vote not in the U.S. Congress, but in the Pennsylvania legislature, over which Muhlenberg had earlier presided. There is no evidence as to Muhlenberg's actual views on German publishing; no evidence that he cast a tie-breaking vote on the matter; and no contemporary indication that the German community was displeased with his stewardship over the Third Congress. However, Muhlenberg later did manage to irritate his German constituents by casting the deciding vote in favor of the Jay Treaty during the Fourth Congress, a move which drove his brother-in-law to stab him and which cost him the next election in 1796. This significant tie-breaker soon became confused with the earlier adjournment cliff-hanger, conveniently fleshing out the myth of the German vote (Feer 1952, 401).


You can find the rest of the story here.http://www.watzmann.net/scg/german-by-one-vote.html

Cromagnon,
You mentioned in a previous post that the USA has no culture besides McDonald's or Pepsi.

I disagree. Among other things, this nation is the birthplace of blues, rock and roll, big band, motion pictures, and the modern day detective story (Edgar Allan Poe).

Also, I believe you are worrying needlessly about Protestants "forcing" immigrants to go to their particular church as well as learning English.

No one here cares what church you go to or even if you go at all.

rendova,

You forgot jazz, rock and roll, hip-hop, rap, rhythm and blues, and the world's best music, doowop.

I did, didn't I?
Also forgot the telephone, the light bulb, and the ever- handy revolver.

oops, I see the revolver was invented in Egngland.
But we've invented other nice guns.

the Gatling gun!!!!
Yee-hah!!

http://www.northstar.k12.ak.us/schools/ryn/projects/inventors/gatling/gatling.html

Cromagnon, Also, I believe you are worrying needlessly about Protestants "forcing" immigrants to go to their particular church as well as learning English.

No, I'm not worrying about religion being forced to immigrants, I know that it will not happen, it would go against all what people believe here "freedom", but I'm trying to show that Religion is as important as language, so why I don't see posts with the same intensity, or concern as with the language. Now remember that south of the US border 90% (maybe more) of the people are Catholics... And they are the ones coming in. So, if some people worry about English losing ground, then they could be worried as well that Catholics become majority in the USA.

About music, well yes you are all right, and I love the blues, and classic rock ('cause I'm getting old) ... No way that I would ever care about hip hop or crap... oops, sorry I mean rap... My collection of CDs left in my country were 90% classic rock and blues (in english)...

That could very well be, that Catholics become the majority here before too long, but I don't see many here worrying about that very much...most people here are tolerant of differing Christian faiths and most, tho they say they are christian, still don't go to church very much or follow their various teachings.

Thanks Frogger for taking the time to write that lengthy explanation about the lingo.With no offical language,I guess,whatever fits,gos..