Atomic City Talk - Oak Ridge

JustMe Wrote:

Jacket Wrote:

Sorry, I really don't want to live in a country that is similar to the Arab world in crime/punishment.

Jacket: Off-topic but You (we) might be closer to living under sharia type law than you think (esp. since some of our pols want us to follow Europe's way)...Let's hope not for women's sake...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...ender.html

Doubtful due to the first amendment. However, my point is this:

Folks with AW's mental attitude don't like the Arabs for whatever reason but yet they tend to be very similar to that thinking. They think much alike but the differences are in how they want their particular brand of totalitarian government imposed and upon who.

"They think much alike but the differences are in how they want their particular brand of totalitarian government imposed and upon who."

Frankly Jacket, the same could be said about the Moveon.org crowd as well.

9ballchamp Wrote:

"They think much alike but the differences are in how they want their particular brand of totalitarian government imposed and upon who."

Frankly Jacket, the same could be said about the Moveon.org crowd as well.

Point? I see both as dangersous in many ways. But I find the two, Islamist and rabid conservatives to be more dangerous and Nazist. That should scare everyone.

askwhy Wrote:

Jacket Wrote:

JustMe Wrote:

Jacket Wrote:

Sorry, I really don't want to live in a country that is similar to the Arab world in crime/punishment.

Jacket: Off-topic but You (we) might be closer to living under sharia type law than you think (esp. since some of our pols want us to follow Europe's way)...Let's hope not for women's sake...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...ender.html

Doubtful due to the first amendment. However, my point is this:

Folks with AW's mental attitude don't like the Arabs for whatever reason but yet they tend to be very similar to that thinking. They think much alike but the differences are in how they want their particular brand of totalitarian government imposed and upon who.

If you don't understand why I don't like the arab/muslims idea of justice/government/terrorism/women's rights, etc., then you are just clueless.

Please expound on what I have said that leads you to believe I prefer a totalitarian government imposed on everyone. I think we have too much government now and would like to get rid of many of the current regulations/laws that we already have as I have stated before. Surely you are not interpreting my belief that we should actually punish criminals who prey on others as some totalitarian beliefs?

Do you work for the parole/probation system or something? Your affinity toward criminals is very strange. It seems you would prefer that we just sit the criminals down and kindly ask them to stop killing old ladies and then send them on their way with milk and cookies?

"just sit the criminals down and kindly ask them to stop killing old ladies and then send them on their way with milk and cookies?"

Wow! You are cluelses. I don't beleive that someone that has killed a little old lady is sat down and sent away with milk and cookies. Another overblown statement by a boor.

You advocate a totalitarian government in rigidness and wanting to impose your form of morals through government intervention rather than through family and socialization. You have zero flexibilty. Your rabid conservative slant is, well tiresome. You do not understand human nature is to make mistakes that can be overcome. Islamists have the exact same attitudes.

Where I work, what I do, and who I associate with is really none of your business. I have not asked you those questions because I really don't care.

askwhy Wrote:

Well, based on your own statements, you don't believe that we should be putting more criminals in jail. You seem to think that "family and socialization" will work better than punishment. I disagree and point to our current situation where "touchy feely" and diversion, probation, etc., don't seem to be working well.

You don't seem to understand at all what a totalitarian government is since you keep misusing the term. I have never said anything about imposing my morals on everyone. You seem to think that enforcing existing laws against criminals who prey on the innocent victims here is somehow similar to islamic law? There is zero connection there.

Perhaps you should just explain your solution to the growing crime problem. You do realize that you can't count on "family and socialization" to work with people who have no morals, conscience, or understanding of right and wrong and whose family are probably involved in the criminal activity also.

"You don't seem to understand at all what a totalitarian government is since you keep misusing the term."

Of course I do since, well I teach Political Science, and have a masters in Political Science/Public Admin. emphasis. I use the term toward you as you do people who do not agree with you as being a "lib" "dem" or whatever slur of the day you have chosen to use. You appear to not be able to identify irony in any form.

As to family and socialization, it works better than you think, if the government will stay out of it.

"You seem to think that enforcing existing laws against criminals who prey on the innocent victims here is somehow similar to islamic law?"

Please tell me where the laws are not being enforced? Oh, I remember now the illegals are not being prosecuted (not the local court system's problem), gang members aren't being prosecuted, sorry that is wrong they are arrested every day.

Your solutions are not going to be put into effect no matter what you wish. You don't appear to understand the political arena where these issues are discussed. Further, you fail to understand the SCOTUS has several opinions that are in full force and effect to prevent just what you want. The courts are the third, AND EQUAL, branch of the government what they say goes. Sorry, I know you will not like that either, unless of course you agree with a finding. Otherwise you will call it judicial activism. J.A. is a term used by the losing side in a lawsuit.

"Perhaps you should just explain your solution to the growing crime problem."

You see a growing crime problem. Again, it is overblown by you. The crimes I see in the paper are about the same in composition and amount as they were 15 years ago. Petty criminals preying on one another. That is no big deal.

Please tell me where, who, and what crime has not been punished within the existing laws of the State of Tennessee when the perpetrator has been brought to justice.

JustMe Wrote:

Jacket Wrote:

Doubtful due to the first amendment. However, my point is this:

Well, it goes to show what you know about how some Muslins think about the constitution...

I think this part of the article in opposition to the US Constitution: "He says, “All Muslims who practice Islam are bound by Islamic law by a certain degree.” This includes all Muslims who live in a Muslim majority country or minority land. These basics of Sharia include worship, financial transactions, legal legislations and such things a judiciary punishment and rewards."

http://compass.lssu.edu/content/view/86/28/

Islamic Law and the United States Constitution
Written by Aaron Kopitz
Friday, 28 September 2007
Monday September 24, Dawud Walid who is the Executive Director of the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-MI) spoke in the Ontario room of the Cisler Center. He gave a presentation on the similarities and differences between Islamic Law also known as Sharia and that of the U.S. Constitution.
Invited by the Diversity Committee and Student Activities Mr. Walid was flown in from Detroit. He gave a hour presentation which then he opened up for questions. He started his speech with what Sharia really is. The first statement he makes to lead us into the topic is “ There is no codified, written Islamic law as there is one written U.S. Constitution”. He explains there are several different interpretations of it. In Sunni Islam or “The majority of Orthodoxy” there are four schools. With in these four schools Sharia has been applied in different ways due to geography, culture and time. In the Shiite branch of Islam there are three schools of thought and one called Nonlbadi. Mr. Walid points out that there are eight different and distinct schools of thought in Islamic Law and a rather new one which is practiced in the Saudi Arabian kingdom called Wahabi.

Since Mr. Walid cannot base his discussion off of one definite Sharia due to the diversity and complexity of its being he uses Al-Shatibi’s Philosophy of Islamic Law or “Objective of Islamic Law.” Mr. Walid compares this book to the Preamble in the U.S. Constitution. He says, “All Muslims who practice Islam are bound by Islamic law by a certain degree.” This includes all Muslims who live in a Muslim majority country or minority land. These basics of Sharia include worship, financial transactions, legal legislations and such things a judiciary punishment and rewards. All Muslims are bound to their actions of devotion to Allah.

There are three objectives in Sharia law on a governmental level. Necessities, requirements and beautification. The necessities of Islamic law is considered the broad preamble of Islamic Law which includes the protection of faith, life, posterity, property and protection of intellectual property. This is similar to the first amendment of the Constitution which is the freedom of religion, speech and the press.

Mr. Walid goes through Amendments and compares them to that of Sharia. He first states that Muslims believe that one significant difference between the Constitution and that of Sharia is that the Constitution was written by men where as the Qu’ran was written divinely through revelations and inspirations from Allah. He continues to explain that unlike the Constitution to be a jury member in an Islamic case one must be fluent in Arabic to interpret and decipher texts and verses of the Qu’ran to help develop their meaning and application in a case.

The presentation of Islamic Law was well received. Some evening classes attended the event to help further their understanding of Islamic culture and society. Mr. Walid was unable to stay in the Sault for a length in time due to it being Ramadan one of the busiest times of the year. When asked what he thought of Sault Sainte Marie, he said “well, I was here last year and didn’t get to see much and I haven’t even been here a day. Its a nice place.” Mr. Walid continues his struggle to bring better understanding between Islam and the West one speech at a time.
===========

What muslim's think of the Constitution is irrelevant. What the SCOTUS thinks of the Constitution is the only authority.

JustMe Wrote:

Jacket Wrote:

JustMe Wrote:

Jacket Wrote:

Doubtful due to the first amendment. However, my point is this:

Well, it goes to show what you know about how some Muslins think about the constitution...

I think this part of the article in opposition to the US Constitution: "He says, “All Muslims who practice Islam are bound by Islamic law by a certain degree.” This includes all Muslims who live in a Muslim majority country or minority land. These basics of Sharia include worship, financial transactions, legal legislations and such things a judiciary punishment and rewards."

http://compass.lssu.edu/content/view/86/28/

Islamic Law and the United States Constitution
Written by Aaron Kopitz
Friday, 28 September 2007
Monday September 24, Dawud Walid who is the Executive Director of the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-MI) spoke in the Ontario room of the Cisler Center. He gave a presentation on the similarities and differences between Islamic Law also known as Sharia and that of the U.S. Constitution.
Invited by the Diversity Committee and Student Activities Mr. Walid was flown in from Detroit. He gave a hour presentation which then he opened up for questions. He started his speech with what Sharia really is. The first statement he makes to lead us into the topic is “ There is no codified, written Islamic law as there is one written U.S. Constitution”. He explains there are several different interpretations of it. In Sunni Islam or “The majority of Orthodoxy” there are four schools. With in these four schools Sharia has been applied in different ways due to geography, culture and time. In the Shiite branch of Islam there are three schools of thought and one called Nonlbadi. Mr. Walid points out that there are eight different and distinct schools of thought in Islamic Law and a rather new one which is practiced in the Saudi Arabian kingdom called Wahabi.

Since Mr. Walid cannot base his discussion off of one definite Sharia due to the diversity and complexity of its being he uses Al-Shatibi’s Philosophy of Islamic Law or “Objective of Islamic Law.” Mr. Walid compares this book to the Preamble in the U.S. Constitution. He says, “All Muslims who practice Islam are bound by Islamic law by a certain degree.” This includes all Muslims who live in a Muslim majority country or minority land. These basics of Sharia include worship, financial transactions, legal legislations and such things a judiciary punishment and rewards. All Muslims are bound to their actions of devotion to Allah.

There are three objectives in Sharia law on a governmental level. Necessities, requirements and beautification. The necessities of Islamic law is considered the broad preamble of Islamic Law which includes the protection of faith, life, posterity, property and protection of intellectual property. This is similar to the first amendment of the Constitution which is the freedom of religion, speech and the press.

Mr. Walid goes through Amendments and compares them to that of Sharia. He first states that Muslims believe that one significant difference between the Constitution and that of Sharia is that the Constitution was written by men where as the Qu’ran was written divinely through revelations and inspirations from Allah. He continues to explain that unlike the Constitution to be a jury member in an Islamic case one must be fluent in Arabic to interpret and decipher texts and verses of the Qu’ran to help develop their meaning and application in a case.

The presentation of Islamic Law was well received. Some evening classes attended the event to help further their understanding of Islamic culture and society. Mr. Walid was unable to stay in the Sault for a length in time due to it being Ramadan one of the busiest times of the year. When asked what he thought of Sault Sainte Marie, he said “well, I was here last year and didn’t get to see much and I haven’t even been here a day. Its a nice place.” Mr. Walid continues his struggle to bring better understanding between Islam and the West one speech at a time.
===========

What muslim's think of the Constitution is irrelevant. What the SCOTUS thinks of the Constitution is the only authority.

You have no clue...

Really? About what? How our government, federalism/checks and balances work?

Please explain them to me then.

JustMe Wrote:

Jacket Wrote:

JustMe Wrote:

Jacket Wrote:

JustMe Wrote:

Jacket Wrote:

Doubtful due to the first amendment. However, my point is this:

Well, it goes to show what you know about how some Muslins think about the constitution...

I think this part of the article in opposition to the US Constitution: "He says, “All Muslims who practice Islam are bound by Islamic law by a certain degree.” This includes all Muslims who live in a Muslim majority country or minority land. These basics of Sharia include worship, financial transactions, legal legislations and such things a judiciary punishment and rewards."

http://compass.lssu.edu/content/view/86/28/

Islamic Law and the United States Constitution
Written by Aaron Kopitz
Friday, 28 September 2007
Monday September 24, Dawud Walid who is the Executive Director of the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-MI) spoke in the Ontario room of the Cisler Center. He gave a presentation on the similarities and differences between Islamic Law also known as Sharia and that of the U.S. Constitution.
Invited by the Diversity Committee and Student Activities Mr. Walid was flown in from Detroit. He gave a hour presentation which then he opened up for questions. He started his speech with what Sharia really is. The first statement he makes to lead us into the topic is “ There is no codified, written Islamic law as there is one written U.S. Constitution”. He explains there are several different interpretations of it. In Sunni Islam or “The majority of Orthodoxy” there are four schools. With in these four schools Sharia has been applied in different ways due to geography, culture and time. In the Shiite branch of Islam there are three schools of thought and one called Nonlbadi. Mr. Walid points out that there are eight different and distinct schools of thought in Islamic Law and a rather new one which is practiced in the Saudi Arabian kingdom called Wahabi.

Since Mr. Walid cannot base his discussion off of one definite Sharia due to the diversity and complexity of its being he uses Al-Shatibi’s Philosophy of Islamic Law or “Objective of Islamic Law.” Mr. Walid compares this book to the Preamble in the U.S. Constitution. He says, “All Muslims who practice Islam are bound by Islamic law by a certain degree.” This includes all Muslims who live in a Muslim majority country or minority land. These basics of Sharia include worship, financial transactions, legal legislations and such things a judiciary punishment and rewards. All Muslims are bound to their actions of devotion to Allah.

There are three objectives in Sharia law on a governmental level. Necessities, requirements and beautification. The necessities of Islamic law is considered the broad preamble of Islamic Law which includes the protection of faith, life, posterity, property and protection of intellectual property. This is similar to the first amendment of the Constitution which is the freedom of religion, speech and the press.

Mr. Walid goes through Amendments and compares them to that of Sharia. He first states that Muslims believe that one significant difference between the Constitution and that of Sharia is that the Constitution was written by men where as the Qu’ran was written divinely through revelations and inspirations from Allah. He continues to explain that unlike the Constitution to be a jury member in an Islamic case one must be fluent in Arabic to interpret and decipher texts and verses of the Qu’ran to help develop their meaning and application in a case.

The presentation of Islamic Law was well received. Some evening classes attended the event to help further their understanding of Islamic culture and society. Mr. Walid was unable to stay in the Sault for a length in time due to it being Ramadan one of the busiest times of the year. When asked what he thought of Sault Sainte Marie, he said “well, I was here last year and didn’t get to see much and I haven’t even been here a day. Its a nice place.” Mr. Walid continues his struggle to bring better understanding between Islam and the West one speech at a time.
===========

What muslim's think of the Constitution is irrelevant. What the SCOTUS thinks of the Constitution is the only authority.

You have no clue...

Really? About what? How our government, federalistic/checks and balances work?

Please explain them to me then.

I know the constitution very well...I know about the checks of balances...I know how many branches of government there are and what each is responsible for...(somebody should tell Rep. Nancy Wasserman Shultz (D. FL) as seen on MSNBC last night making the normal fool of herself)...Of course we need to tell Bush the same thing...

I would love to debate you sometime but I wouldn't waste my time debating a closed-minded liberal who thinks tax increases are the way to stimulate the economy and cut back inflation...and especially someone who calls conservatives Nazis...

Close minded liberal? Wow, that does not work at all.

But yet you have to explain where I was wrong in who has say on constitutional matters. Is it the muslims, or the SCOTUS? Simple question answerable if you really know the Constitution.

BTW, Tax increases control the economy by controling inflation and the money supply, not stimulate it. Here is a hint: inflation is where there are too much money chasing too many goods. This means the the economy is out of equalibrium and to get money out of circulation taxes work just fine, along with interest rate increases.

askwhy Wrote:

You think someone sticking a gun in your face and jacking your car is "no big deal" or someone stealing your converter that you have to pay $1000 to replace - "no big deal".

I happen to think all crimes are a big deal to the victims and we owe it to them to identify the bad guys and arrest them. It would be nice if the courts actually punished them or at least incarcerated them so they aren't out doing it over and over again. But, I respect your opinion that you think we can just let the family and society deal with them. It is also nice that you think all the crime victims are just petty criminals themselves preyed upon by other criminals. I am sure that they appreciate that.

I think your anecdotal and imaginative stories on crime are entertaining but the actual trend is more informative.

askwhy Wrote:

CrackerNation Wrote:

I think your anecdotal and imaginative stories on crime are entertaining but the actual trend is more informative.

What is imaginative is posting a chart of NATIONAL stats and inferring that they have anything to do with our LOCAL crime which is twice the national average. You and jacket seem to think that if the crime doesn't happen to you it is unimportant - that is precisely the attitude in OR that keeps us from addressing and solving the crime problems.

Do you think the carjacker is a beneficiary of the lax justice system that jacket supports or do you think this was his first offense?

Crime in the South has been increasing while the rest of the country has been decreasing. You can move to the North East if you need a better trend.

And how does not being a first offense equate with being a beneficiary of your imagined lax justice system? You don't think that a 51 year old man could have spent 35 years in prison? Does that translate to lax in your mind?