English can't possibly be the national language. Look what's Preznit of Murka!

I don't think it's unreasonable to think that one day, we might have more than one official language in the US. First candidate is obviously Spanish.

Just a quick point - the USA has no official language. Our default language is English (those in Great Britain would call it 'American') but we have never had an official legal language.

It's sad that Republicans can always count on bigotry to rally their base. First, it was gay marriage. Now, it's the national anthem in Spanish/illegal immigration. I wonder what we have to look forward to as the election draws nearer.

then how do you explain the fact that our very own State Department has FOUR different translations on their official website? Four. I imagine each one is slightly different. And they're clearly sanctioned by the Bush Administration - they run the State Dept.

I followed a link to the "Spanish anthem". The tune is the same and some of the phrases are the same, but other lyrics (based on my admittedly rusty Spanish) were closer to the French national anthem (a call to arms) than the Star Spangled Banner.

I wouldn't have much concern about a true translation (with a little massaging for rhythm and rhyme). But that's not what I read...and I am concerned.

America had been a country for 150 years before Scott Off-Key's abomination was foisted on us as an anthem. Jefferson didn't write it; neither did Madison. It's nothing but an affectation in any language. This Land is Your Land comes far closer to expressing the national spirit in the way Lincoln, Whitman, and Roosevelt (either will do) did. Woody Guthrie was most emphatically NOT a hippie. Read some fuggin' history.

So apparently they did not think this was a big deal either, until now.

http://usinfo.state.gov/esp/home/topics/us_society_values/national_symbols/anthem_spanish.html

I agree that "The Star-Spangled Banner" is completely atrocious and unsingable. However, I can only think of one other popular patriotic song that doesn't mention God - "This Land is Your Land." And we all know that there are some people who would never ever agree to sing that "hippie music."

I would rather have a song that is hard to listen to than implicitly condone the combining of church and state.

It seems hypocritical to be up in arms about this, considering that we rewrote the English national anthem, God Save the Queen, as My Country 'tis of Thee.

I agree with Zaynab, that languages are fluid. I think everyone should learn other languages, but I could no more get angry at someone who finds English difficult than I could if we communicated using trigonometry, and people who weren't handy with math found it hard to study.

I got into this debate with a colleague at work who thought singing the anthem in Spanish was despicable.

"Despicable" was exactly the word that Francis Scott Key's descendant used (maybe your coworker saw the news report and was unconsciously ripping off the quote). He practically had spittle flying in his anger over this.

The national anthem and the flag are symbols. They mean nothing compared to the freedom to peaceably assemble, to petition the government for a redress of grievances, or to speak (or sing) freely.

I hate our national anthem. It's boring, screechy, difficult for even a trained voice, militaristic and just a poor anthem for a great nation. I'm for changing it to "America The Beautiful," and anyone who wants to write foreign-language versions is fine by me.

This whole thing reminds me that when some 25 years ago, French pop artist, Serge Gainsbourg, released a version of "La Marseillaise" on a reggae beat, the reaction among the French political class was exactly the same. Idem for polls. Listening to them, one would have thought that the end of civilization had been reached! Result after 25 years: zip! nada! and I doubt that anybody even remembers except spme olf foggies llike me (who enjoyed the twist Gainsbourg made on very bloody anthem)!

Cynical politicians love this kind of things; it allows then to look like they are on top of things, to take vigorous stances (at no political cost since everybody agrees anyway). It is a lot easier than to make actual decision on the business of running the nation!

Since Colbert has already commented on the Spanish language anthem last week, shouldn't that put the issue off limit to Frist and others? But I forget, reight wingrs do not have a good sense of irony!

When one thinks that Congress will be in session only 97 days this year and that it is willing to spend time on such nonsense, it shows how low our democracy has fallen.

I got into this debate with a colleague at work who thought singing the anthem in Spanish was despicable.

Turns out the last time he sang it was at a Dodger game. And before that at a USC football game. I would safely bet that's essentially the only time most of us sing it. And next time you do, listen to your neighbor mangle or totally forget the English words.

This is a non-issue.

I know it can get a little confusing, especially for places like Canada (where, Lord knows, if you get an English-speaking Canadian going on the topic of bilingualism, they won't stop until you cry mercy), but many countries actually have more than one official language. In some places, like India, a few languages are chosen as official state languages, and hundreds of other languages are "recognized". I don't think it's unreasonable to think that one day, we might have more than one official language in the US. First candidate is obviously Spanish.

Now, I'm a linguist, an a liberal one at that, but I do believe that people who move to a country should make an effort to speak the main or official language of that country, if only to help themselves and their economic prospects. When I lived abroad, I made a point to earnestly study the official language of my country of residence, even though most people could communicate with me in English if they wanted to, and I could have gotten by living with groups of ex-pat Americans. I thought it was respectful (and empowering, to say the least) to be able to communicate in Chinese, Japanese, or Spanish without consulting a phrase book.

That said, I don't think it would hurt our country to have more than one official language. It will happen, be it in 20, 50, or 100 years. And those wrinkled old white folks shrieking about cultural heritage and insulting our forefathers are going to look even more desperate and pathetic than they do now.

Brian: Ever hear of something called language change? It has to do with the gradual processes in which languages evolve. It's why you and I can't read Chaucer without translation, even though it's in the same language. It all boils down to this: languages are not pure, perfect things. They do not make us who we are. They change over centuries, and a few hundred years from now, English will have changed so much that our Bill of Rights will need to be updated and translated so that your descendants can read it.

Chew on that.