Plan B Forum

ON his way to the Republican nomination for president ....


Fomenting hatred and intolerance and probably winning a lot of Republican votes along the way.


________________________________________
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/2 ... 55493.html

Gingrich: 'No Mosque'

BETH FOUHY | 07/21/10 08:17 PM | AP

NEW YORK — Former U.S. House speaker Newt Gingrich on Wednesday announced his opposition to a planned mosque near ground zero, becoming the latest Republican leader to place the project on the national political stage.

In a statement posted on his website, Gingrich, a potential 2012 presidential contender, said flatly, "No mosque." And he criticized Muslim leaders for suggesting the mosque's opponents are religiously intolerant.

"The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over," Gingrich wrote. "The proposed 'Cordoba House' overlooking the World Trade Center site – where a group of jihadists killed over 3,000 Americans and destroyed one of our most famous landmarks – is a test of the timidity, passivity and historic ignorance of American elites."

...

__________________________________________


yrs,
rubato

Palin "refudiates" religious freedom and tolerance. Hatred and fear win a lot more votes in her claque.

____________________________________

Sarah Palin has a new cause – the proposed mosque near Ground Zero in New York.
On Sunday, via the social networking site Twitter, the former Alaska governor asked "peace-seeking" Muslims to understand that the mosque will interfere with recovery from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
"Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Pls reject it in interest of healing" Palin tweeted from her BlackBerry.
Earlier Sunday afternoon, Palin tweeted, "Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn't it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate."
(But she likely meant "repudiate.")
...
_______________________________________


yrs,
rubato

Somehow, I doubt he would similarly object to or seek to prevent a christian church being erected near the site an abortion clinic bombed by "Chrsitianists".

Jerk.

I ask who is more evil.

The persons who caused the WTC disaster or a down a the heels Newt G. and the repub party?

Did I miss the part where anyone who "caused the WTC disaster" is in any way connected to the proposed mosque?

Exactly, by it's very nature a mosque is a peaceful place. Plus, people keep forgetting that the 'Cordoba House' is a community center with a mosque in it. Any community, not just Muslim;

Why the Cordoba House?

Cordoba House is a Muslim-led project which will build a world-class facility that promotes tolerance, reflecting the rich diversity of New York City. The center will be community-driven, serving as a platform for inter-community gatherings and cooperation at all levels, providing a space for all New Yorkers to enjoy.

This proposed project is about promoting integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion through arts and culture. Cordoba House will provide a place where individuals, regardless of their backgrounds, will find a center of learning, art and culture; and most importantly, a center guided by Islamic values in their truest form - compassion, generosity, and respect for all.

The YMCA doesn't turn you away if you're not a Christian. Why turn away peace, what ever form it takes?

Because it's divisive and give the talk radio and conservative TV pundits something to rant about. Also, it appeals to our instinctive racism and rejection of the "others".

Why not construct a non-religious "peace center" that embraces all faiths?

This would hardly be devisive our fall under the "us vs. them" conumdrum.

The construction of a mosque is devisive in the extreme.

So Muslims can't build mosques anymore, because they are "divisive"?

Is it just an anti-Muslim thing, or should Jehovah's Witnesses be prohibited from building any more kingdom halls?

Scooter wrote:So Muslims can't build mosques anymore, because they are "divisive"?

Is it just an anti-Muslim thing, or should Jehovah's Witnesses be prohibited from building any more kingdom halls?

65 years ago today the U.S. dropped an atom bomb on Hiroshima.

Do you think the Japanese would have approved of an American Legion Center being built there a few years later?

So mosques are to terrorists what the American Legion is to soldiers and airmen? I just don't see the connection; dropping theatomic bombs on Hiroshima was a military operation of the US military, and the AL is an American organization which exists to celebrate the military service of its members. I could see how that might bother some Japanese after the bombing occurred. But the instant situation is more like the lutheran church seeking to establish a house of worship near the bomb site, and some objection because one or more of the people on the plane professed to be lutheran.

Idiots flew the planes into the world trade center; mosques are houses of worship. It is true that some or all of the idiots professed to be moslems, but is this a reason to ban the building of a mosque? I would imagine the idiots also probably drank tea (as many arabic people do); would you similarly ban the serving of tea in restaurants around the area of the attacks? The people seeking to include the mosque in their center had nothing to do with the attack, nor was the attack orchestrated by Islam. It was just a bunch of misguided jerks.

Joe Guy wrote:65 years ago today the U.S. dropped an atom bomb on Hiroshima.

Do you think the Japanese would have approved of an American Legion Center being built there a few years later?

Perhaps you can ask me the question again when American Legion halls gain the same protections under the Japanese constitution that mosques and other houses of worship have enjoyed for 221 years under the U.S. constitution, to say nothing of whatever protections they might also have under the constitution of the state of New York and under the city charter of New York City.

And the Japanese had to tolerate armed American soldiers walking their streets for years after the those bombs were dropped, wearing the same uniform as those who dropped the bomb, and had to submit to whatever whims the American military gov't overseeing Japanese life sought to impose at the time, and they all managed to survive quite well, so I think Americans should be big enough to deal with the construction of a mosque.

Unless, of course, you are conceding that Americans are far more bigoted than the Japanese ever could be...

Joe Guy wrote:65 years ago today the U.S. dropped an atom bomb on Hiroshima.

Do you think the Japanese would have approved of an American Legion Center being built there a few years later?

Perhaps you can ask me the question again when American Legion halls gain the same protections under the Japanese constitution that mosques and other houses of worship have enjoyed for 221 years under the U.S. constitution, to say nothing of whatever protections they might also have under the constitution of the state of New York and under the city charter of New York City.

And the Japanese had to tolerate armed American soldiers walking their streets for years after the those bombs were dropped, wearing the same uniform as those who dropped the bomb, and had to submit to whatever whims the American military gov't overseeing Japanese life sought to impose at the time, and they all managed to survive quite well, so I think Americans should be big enough to deal with the construction of a mosque.

Unless, of course, you are conceding that Americans are far more bigoted than the Japanese ever could be...

The point I'm making is that it is about what that mosque would represent to many Americans (and others, including Bin Laden & other muslim terrorists) - regardless of its intended purpose.

Loca wrote this - "Exactly, by it's very nature a mosque is a peaceful place".

Then, if these muslims want to promote peacefulness, they would understand the situation and build somewhere further from Ground Zero.

Scooter wrote this - "So Muslims can't build mosques anymore, because they are "divisive"?"

Nobody said muslims can't build mosques. It's the location that is an issue.

What the muslim's reason for building at that location is not as important as how people perceive the idea.

So, although you or I don't care or can't understand why anyone is upset over this, there are many people who are upset.

Does that mean we should just tell all of those people who may have lost friends and/or relatives at the Twin Towers and are upset that a mosque is being built at the site to just 'get over it?'

:

From what I can tell, the mosque isn't being buit at, but near, the site.

You're right Gob.

It's not at the site.

It's very near the site.

Too close for comfort, in the opinion of many.

Ok, what would be an acceptable distance?

Gob wrote:Ok, what would be an acceptable distance?

It will be two blocks from "Ground Zero"

It shouldn't be built anywhere near there.

How about a couple of miles away?

I'm sure there would be no complaints.

I don't understand why there is an argument FOR the mosque being built near Ground Zero.

If it's really about "Peace" then they should be peaceful and avoid controversy.

Acceptable distance?

How 'bout on the moon?