Apples and oranges. That's not what multiculturalism means. Multiculturalism is simply the freedom to practice a culture different from what's common in the country you live in.

"Allowing" third world countries to rob investors is simply accepting their national sovereignty (at least that's how it's worded if you're in favor of it) or is failure to pursue sensible colonialism (if you're not).

The world has always been better off economically during periods when one large empire dominates the world and practices colonialism. But this is only economically possible when the empire has and maintains a big lead in the "arms race" against everybody else. When Rome, and later Britain, and now the US, lost that lead their empires collapsed, and the world went into economic depressions. I bring this up because it is only during one of these periods of colonialism that it's practical to go out and conquer the poor countries -- and even then the conquest won't stick unless you have the moral courage to make them abandon the anti-property-rights cultural views that made them poor.

As far as things having greater value in one place than another -- that is confused thinking. Petroleum has the same worth everywhere, but it's the willingness to allow cars and other consumer goods to be marketed that causes it to be useful here. The residents of Arabia and Persia could have that as easily as we did, but they or their rulers chose not to. The best argument for colonialism is that it enables individuals to make these choices even if the dominant culture in that land disagrees with them.

Not sure you read my whole message, but okay. To be more succinct, I was telling mia767ca to attack the problem, not the symptom. The problem is out of control government taxation, tax laws, and the like. NOT religious groups.

Not sure he was called that at the time. I do know that "progressivism" was in vogue, with some, during Wilson's term.

That Genghis Khan rule would make it hard for Southern Baptists to act like Southern Baptists in places I've hailed from through my 68 years. .
In fact, Id find that amusing.

Under the constitution, groups have a right to gather under the first amendment, you know the BILL OF RIGHTS? You seem to be a person of tyrannical leanings who wants to break up people who gather in fellowship because YOU don't like it (or are afraid of it?)??? You know the constitution? It's there to protect ALL NATURAL RIGHTS and freedoms. You don't support them, fine. DON'T. No one is FORCED to support them. If they are tax exempt, how does that hurt you? How does what anyone have to pay or not pay harm you? I suppose you think a rich person making lots of money harms you, too? Taxes harm this country overall whether someone or SOME GROUP pays or not. Don't get on a band-wagon blaming the group. Blame the taxes YOU have to pay and the people who write, institute, and ENFORCE the tax laws (yes, that goes for local, state, and federal). There is NO PLACE in the Constitution, or life for that matter, for ENVY.

Your focus on organized religion is not on the problem but on a symptom and THAT NEVER solves problems. Your focus on religious groups also says a lot about YOU, not them.

In the meantime, you wish tax-exempt status? Use the criminal tax code as it is written now and start a 503C. Or, go online and pick up one of those certificates that say you are "ordained" and claim tax-exempt status yourself! LOL. Problem solved. If envy.....sorry life gives you lemons, make lemonade! AND STOP COMPLAINING. There's lots of simple wisdom in that silly song, "Don't worry, be happy" you might want to try to emulate. It really does make you attractive to others. But, in the end, get out there and change the tax code with a SMILE on your face. It will also have a magical effect of making you feel happy! BUT STOP ADVOCATING FOR DESTRUCTION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, okay? That will only help continue us down the road to tyrannical hell we are currently marching on.

i have always supported the removal of taxation from my hide...opposing the non-tax status of organized religion is one such way...i think the constitution says something about making no laws in regards to religion...

any religion practiced in private with no govt supported advantages

truly have no idea what the websites you referred to are all about...

as to "totalitarianism", i refer you to the book by Hannah Arendt under the same title...

others are free to decide whether or not to be religious, but when they band together to force me to support them, that is totalitarianism...organized religion with govt protected rights that infringe on my rights is totalitarianism...

Froggie does not know he is a socialist slave until it is too late.

Boiling frog is good... Filing that one.

If the real Gault's Gulch existed, we could all just pick up and move there. Unfortunately we are stuck in the Dagny Delema of having to try to change it rather than abandon it. But I'm not completely pessimistic. Talk to a college age student about freedom and individuality and most will expose themselves as libertarians, and even defacto objectivists if they are principled in there thought. The problem is they reject the labels... Again assuming intellectual honesty (which is assuming a lot from a young mind). But you start by talking to them about tolerance, anti-establishment individualism ( everyone is a snow flake) and then reference progressive principles we agree with, like liberal positions on choice (sexual, abortion, drugs) and you have a cocktail that most late teens will swallow. Just don't put " Libertarian Libation" or "Rand-y Brandy" on the label. I've been experimenting with students with encouraging results.

I'm thinking up random examples of Christian tolerance~
There was a point in time when Catholics and Protestants stopped shooting cannon balls at each other and found a way to live side by side and get along.
At some point both versions of Christianity quit picking on Jews until Nazis came and went.
There's a passage in the New Testament about encouraging one to be a fisher of men; but should your preaching be rejected, just beat the dust off your sandals and go your merry way. There's nothing about siccing some Inquisition on anyone.
It was the lust for power (and greed) that caused Christianity to become so twisted and quite quickly way back when.

Rather than pushing for taxing religion, whether organized or not, how about fighting for removing the taxation from your own hide? Then you won't have to complain about supporting a religion, or school, or government agency, or foundation, or any 501c3, etc. It's interesting to see, when a boot is on your neck, rather than removing the boot, you want others to also have a boot on their neck, to be "fair."

What allowed for FDR to be elected FOUR times?!? There had to be some ideology that supported what he did, AND that the American people fell for, too.

She is certainly easy on the eyes.

The fact that we allowed all the third world pestholes to rob the many investors of their property was the first solid example of multiculturalism. What should have been done to the very first thug who thought that he could rob the investors of their property was to hang him in the city square, like they hanged horse thieves. Instead, we legitimized it, with the result that every thug in sight jumped on the bandwagon. Just look at petroleum, for example. It had been under the hooves of the Arab's and Persian's (and others') horses and camels for millennia. It had no value in those societies. The only place it had value was in the developed countries, as we can see even today. It meant nothing to the tribesmen. In their eyes, they were being given gold for something that was worthless. Nice job, if you can get it. It's the same with ALL of the commodities. The only places they have value are in Paris, New York, Tokyo, Berlin, London,.... Think about that.

Notice that those who were planning on spending all of the country's money were not the ones who earned it. Virtually all of the barons apparently bought into the idea that their wealth wasn't theirs, so they proceeded to give it away, beginning with Carnegie. What they created in the giving was awesome - universities, libraries, and other institutions that enabled the rapid advancement of the country. The problem was that the giving was couched in altruism, not rational selfishness. Once that crack was made in the dam, then all kinds of so-called "progressive" policies could be implemented, beginning with anti trust. Once it was conceded that a bureaucrat could limit how much you could achieve, then the crack became a bigger and bigger hole. Now, the entire lake looks like it's about to engulf the town, that city on the hill. The lesson to be learned is that ANY violation of one's rights opens a festering sore that will eventually destroy the host. Beginning with slavery, where we betrayed the very founding principles upon which the revolution was fought, any principled stand of individual rights was weakened, including the right of the robber barons to earn and keep their money without having to put it up for hostage, in order to be allowed to continue to achieve. In that context, TR, WW, HH, FDR, and all those following, were merely riding a wave that was set in motion long before they were even a twinkle in their parents' eyes.

Why is it "interesting" that I know about other websites when you, I assume, are saying you don't? The "interesting" comment would imply that you actually do know what type of websites they are.

Anyway, totalitarianism is pretty much frowned on here in the Gulch. So, my suggestion was that you might find more like-minds at those other places. I want everyone to be happy! If, obviously, religion won't make you happy, I suggest you leave others to decide for themselves. However, validation if you feel you need it, you might find elsewhere.

Re: (1) I think you mean centralism. (Federalism = devolution of power from the central government to the states. Lincoln was against that.)

The Shah, of course, was put in power by the CIA in 1952 after they assassinated Mossadegh for nationalizing the property of US oil companies in Iran. I have no problem with the US or similar countries doing this; I wish we could still afford to do it today, and take back the loot already seized by the Saudis and others.

As for the Shah being unpopular, I'm sure that was true while he ruled. But I know some immigrants from Iran and they would love to have him back, so they could go home.

The only way to "treat" mass irrationality is to get control of education and use it to educate the next generation better. And of course you can't use democratic means to accomplish that because rational people won't have a majority until after you've done it, if then.

No. I think it's time to abandon the democratic experiment, and design a state with a small set of laws, fixed in a constitution and not changeable ever.