• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Our 'Christian' President seems to think Arabic is the language of the future

Arabic is one of the more popular languages worldwide, so it probably would be more useful than German or French. That said, I don't think it is sensible to make the class mandatory either.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Where in the article is Obama even mentioned? Even if he did have something to do with this, I don't see how being a "Christian" President has anything to do with thinking that Arabic is the language of the future.
Click to expand...

Actually it does mention the U.S. Department of Education designating Arabic a "language of the future" though that is hardly the whole story:

The Foreign Language Assistance Program (FLAP)
provides grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) for innovative
model programs providing for the establishment, improvement, or
expansion of foreign language study for elementary and secondary school
students. Under this competition, as provided for in Division D, Title
III, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, Public Law 111-117,
5-year grants will be awarded to LEAs to work in partnership with one
or more institutions of higher education (IHEs) to establish or expand
articulated programs of study in languages critical to United States
national security in order to enable successful students, as they
advance from elementary school through secondary school and college, to
achieve a superior level of proficiency in those languages.
Click to expand...

This priority supports projects that establish, improve or expand
foreign language learning, primarily during the traditional school day,
within grade kindergarten through grade 12, that exclusively teach one
or more of the following less commonly taught languages: Arabic,
Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Russian, and languages in the Indic,
Iranian, and Turkic language families.
Click to expand...

Source: FR Doc 2010-5616
 
cre8ive1970 said:
This only raises more questions for me:

TX School District Plans to Force Some Students to Take Arabic Language, Culture Classes | The Blaze
Click to expand...

The best way to fight terrorism from other nations is to vehemently NOT know their language. In fact, learning other languages is only kowtowing to them.

The only way to protect America is to speak only English - and only in colloquial forms with questionable grammar, contractions, and regional accents that result in mispronunciations!

We'll show 'em! They can't make me talk funny talk cause I'm a proud 'Merkin!
 
StillBallin75 said:
Where in the article is Obama even mentioned? Even if he did have something to do with this, I don't see how being a "Christian" President has anything to do with thinking that Arabic is the language of the future.
Click to expand...



Obama is not specifically mentioned, but when I look at all the other things he is doing or not doing regarding the Islamic world and the assertion that Arabic is the 'language of the future". I get a little concerned. Obama is a socialist, and the Islamists are religious fascists. We have seen, in history, the enemies of capitalism united against their common enemy (i.e. freedom) and I see this as a trial balloon, particularly since it was made mandatory. Obama is in control of the executive branch and, as such, he is responsible for what the various departments implement as policy. Obama's father was a muslem, as was his step father. As far as I'm concerned, this is more eveidence that Obama is a trojan horse.
 
cre8ive1970 said:
Obama is not specifically mentioned, but when I look at all the other things he is doing or not doing regarding the Islamic world and the assertion that Arabic is the 'language of the future". I get a little concerned. Obama is a socialist, and the Islamists are religious fascists. We have seen, in history, the enemies of capitalism united against their common enemy (i.e. freedom) and I see this as a trial balloon, particularly since it was made mandatory. Obama is in control of the executive branch and, as such, he is responsible for what the various departments implement as policy. Obama's father was a muslem, as was his step father. As far as I'm concerned, this is more eveidence that Obama is a trojan horse.
Click to expand...

conspiracy.jpg
 
cre8ive1970 said:
Obama is not specifically mentioned, but when I look at all the other things he is doing or not doing regarding the Islamic world and the assertion that Arabic is the 'language of the future". I get a little concerned. Obama is a socialist, and the Islamists are religious fascists. We have seen, in history, the enemies of capitalism united against their common enemy (i.e. freedom) and I see this as a trial balloon, particularly since it was made mandatory. Obama is in control of the executive branch and, as such, he is responsible for what the various departments implement as policy. Obama's father was a muslem, as was his step father. As far as I'm concerned, this is more eveidence that Obama is a trojan horse.
Click to expand...

Don't tell me you seriously believe a religion that in it's extreme promotes a patriachal society of enforced inequality is compatible with a political philosophy that has the expressed purpose of eliminating inequality and elimination of religion.
 
Obama is not specifically mentioned, but when I look at all the other things he is doing or not doing regarding the Islamic world and the assertion that Arabic is the 'language of the future".
Click to expand...

What's wrong with thinking that Arabic is the language of the future? Like it or not, the United States is becoming increasingly entangled in the affairs of the Middle East. It only makes sense that Arabic is regarded as a language of the future, just like Chinese.

Obama is a socialist, and the Islamists are religious fascists.
Click to expand...

Obama is NOT a socialist, in any objective sense of the word, as much as I wish he were a socialist. And even if he were a socialist, that has literally nothing to do with "Islamofascism."

We have seen, in history, the enemies of capitalism united against their common enemy (i.e. freedom) and I see this as a trial balloon, particularly since it was made mandatory.
Click to expand...

When a school gets a 1.3 million dollar grant from the government, you can expect there to be strings attached. Guess what, I was "forced" to learn math and science and English in middle school, as much as I may have hated those subjects. I didn't have a choice in the matter. Like I said, America is becoming increasingly entangled in the affairs of places like the Middle and Far East. It only makes sense that we place emphases on those languages. We train our troops to speak languages like Arabic and Pashtun. I guess that's a conspiracy as well?

Obama is in control of the executive branch and, as such, he is responsible for what the various departments implement as policy.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, Obama does not, and in all likelihood cannot, micromanage the bureaucracy on a day-to-day basis.

Obama's father was a muslem, as was his step father.
Click to expand...

I'm a first-generation American. I'm nonreligious, but most of my relatives are Buddhist or practice some form of Eastern religion. Welcome to America.

As far as I'm concerned, this is more eveidence that Obama is a trojan horse.
Click to expand...

For what, exactly, converting everyone to Islam? He's not even a Muslim...
 
Last edited:
spud_meister said:
Don't tell me you seriously believe a religion that in it's extreme promotes a patriachal society of enforced inequality is compatible with a political philosophy that has the expressed purpose of eliminating inequality and elimination of religion.
Click to expand...

Don't tell me you seriously believe that that the political philosophy you seem to be referring to is actually concerned with eliminating inequality. Can you show me evidence of where that has ever occurred when that political philososphy has actually been implimented. The end game is the same. Central control. The two philosophies are incompatible but they are happy to unite against a common enemy (i.e. freedom) and once that enemy is defeated, they will battle each other. History is full of such alliances.
 
cre8ive1970 said:
Don't tell me you seriously believe that that the political philosophy you seem to be referring to is actually concerned with eliminating inequality. Can you show me evidence of where that has ever occurred when that political philososphy has actually been implimented. The end game is the same. Central control. The two philosophies are incompatible but they are happy to unite against a common enemy (i.e. freedom) and once that enemy is defeated, they will battle each other. History is full of such alliances.
Click to expand...

Actually, many of the reforms were doing great until their funding was gutted in the 70s and 80s.
 
cre8ive1970 said:
Don't tell me you seriously believe that that the political philosophy you seem to be referring to is actually concerned with eliminating inequality. Can you show me evidence of where that has ever occurred when that political philososphy has actually been implimented. The end game is the same. Central control. The two philosophies are incompatible but they are happy to unite against a common enemy (i.e. freedom) and once that enemy is defeated, they will battle each other. History is full of such alliances.
Click to expand...

So they're working to defeat 'freedom', so who is this 'freedom', and where does he live?

And you may be ignorant of history, but socialism, as a doctrine, came about as a direct response to social inequality in Europe, and while it has never been succefully implemented on a large scale, there core tenet is equality.

And bak to the OP, what does language have to do with religion anyway?
 
spud_meister said:
And you may be ignorant of history, but socialism, as a doctrine, came about as a direct response to social inequality in Europe, and while it has never been succefully implemented on a large scale, there core tenet is equality
Click to expand...

The core lie of socialism is equality. Socialism as a practical policy cannot succeed. Everybody except the ruling class being equally poor may seem like equality but it is no different than an Aristocracy. The only difference is that different people are in charge and they aren't necessarily able to pass their power on to their offspring, power goes only to the party members. The core lie of 'equality' is equality. That whole mantra is a denial of the human condition.
 
cre8ive1970 said:
The core lie of socialism is equality. Socialism as a practical policy cannot succeed. Everybody except the ruling class being equally poor may seem like equality but it is no different than an Aristocracy. The only difference is that different people are in charge and they aren't necessarily able to pass their power on to their offspring, power goes only to the party members. The core lie of 'equality' is equality. That whole mantra is a denial of the human condition.
Click to expand...

You are describing Communism. It is but one type of socialism.
 
cre8ive1970 said:
The core lie of socialism is equality. Socialism as a practical policy cannot succeed. Everybody except the ruling class being equally poor may seem like equality but it is no different than an Aristocracy. The only difference is that different people are in charge and they aren't necessarily able to pass their power on to their offspring, power goes only to the party members. The core lie of 'equality' is equality. That whole mantra is a denial of the human condition.
Click to expand...

Socialism is a destination, there's no line in the sand that neatly defines socialism from capitalism. Socialism is just a word which defines the degree a government is involved in people's lives either directly or indirectly, when compared to another government. Outside of a statement like "The French government is more socialist than the American one" the word "socialism" has no firm meaning.
 
cre8ive1970 said:
The core lie of socialism is equality. Socialism as a practical policy cannot succeed. Everybody except the ruling class being equally poor may seem like equality but it is no different than an Aristocracy. The only difference is that different people are in charge and they aren't necessarily able to pass their power on to their offspring, power goes only to the party members. The core lie of 'equality' is equality. That whole mantra is a denial of the human condition.
Click to expand...

I can agree with this. From a theoretical standpoint, most ideologies, socialism, communism, and libertarianism fail as practical entities because of human psychology.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I can agree with this. From a theoretical standpoint, most ideologies, socialism, communism, and libertarianism fail as practical entities because of human psychology.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ. Libertarianism is ideologically sound but fails in practice, in contrast to communism which is neither ideologically sound nor successful in practice.
 
Guy Incognito said:
I beg to differ. Libertarianism is ideologically sound but fails in practice, in contrast to communism which is neither ideologically sound nor successful in practice.
Click to expand...

Any philosophy seems ideologically sound to those who believe in it...
 
megaprogman said:
Any philosophy seems ideologically sound to those who believe in it...
Click to expand...

You misunderstand. I'm speaking objectively; opinion or belief do not enter into it. Libertarianism accounts for human greed, communism does not, hence the former is sound and the latter is not.

Whether or not an ideology is sound is a separate question from whether or not the ideology can succeed in practice.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
You misunderstand. I'm speaking objectively; opinion or belief do not enter into it. Libertarianism accounts for human greed, communism does not, hence the former is sound and the latter is not.

This is separate from whether or not they can be implemented in practice.
Click to expand...

Well, you know my view on the matter. Libertarianism and communism account for different and often dueling aspects of human nature, if they did not, there would be no attraction for the ideology by anyone. Thats why I made my comment about belief, while in general, the human race has many facets to it from greed to compassion and everything in between, good or ill, specifically, people are attracted to a subset of those categories. This is part of what makes up our personality, our personality is often linked to our belief as some options seem more attractive to us rather than other options and given that we filter our perceptions through our own personality, generally a belief will seem sound to those who believe in it.

Now to get to your point on an objective level, I think you are partially right, but again, if there was no attraction for a philosophy, it would not be somehow attached to human nature or have a reason for existance. In that case, no philosophy is no more valid or special than any other and thus we measure by their results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom