Oklahoma State Questions

[2busy]

i guarantee you will have some one bring up sharia law in a court with the muslims expanding their territory.thats all i am going to say. thanks

 

[rawhide]

For the record, I will vote NO on 744.

One of the biggest arguments I hear to vote otherwise is teacher pay. In the first link ( teacher pay chart) you will see what minimum teacher salaries are in the state. For example: A 5th year teacher with 4 years education will have a minimum salary of $33,500/year. In the next link ( Oklahoma School Code) it says number of hours/or days required for schools to be in session. It says minimum days for instructions are 180 days or if chosen by the hour, no less than 1080 hours. A 40 hour work week for 52 weeks a year equals 2080 hours. (40hr/wk X 52wk=2080)
So a teacher's required hours of work is 1080/40hr= 27 weeks of work. A 5th year teacher, with 4 years education, minimum salary is $33,500 for just over half a years work.

Not debating the good and the bad of 744 but will take issue with this misleading analogy.

 

[brazilianboy]

The fact people are led to sincerely believe the above statement is more frightening than the the impossibility of sharia law ever being used in Oklahoma

very sad

 

[brazilianboy]

When the law passes, Ahmadinejad better not step in Oklahoma...

 

[vvvvvvv]

i guarantee you will have some one bring up sharia law in a court with the muslims expanding their territory.thats all i am going to say. thanks

You still didn't answer my question.

Additionally, by singling out Sharia Law in the measure, I can almost guarantee First Amendment litigation, which the State will be obligated to defend against, even if it is a losing case.

Judging by the amount of people who tell me "but it prohibits Sharia Law" (or something similar), I'll bet a prohibition of certain religions would have a certain level of momentum in this state.

It's apparent that Oklahomans only care about what words are used in a measure, not what a particular measure actually does.

 

[soonerwings]

I apologize for getting off the sharia law topic that seems to be so captivating to everyone but please allow a quick sidebar.

VM,

Don't take this as an attack, but I found what I view to be an inconsistency of sorts in some of your logic. You say in your blog that requiring ID at the polls is an assumption of guilty until proven innocent, which I personally disagree with, but that's a whole other discussion. For the moment, let's say that you're right and that it assumes guilt. You further assert that you'll vote "no" for voter id because you believe in liberty in Oklahoma. How then could you support any measure in favor of term limits? Is it not the same underlying assumption? It seems to me that voting in favor of term limits of any form that you're either making the assumption that a.) the elected official is "guilty" of doing something to deserve term limits or b.) the public is "guilty" of negligence when voting and must need safeguards against getting the government it deserves. How do you reconcile these positions?

 

[2busy]

these are not my words, but they do a good job of explaining.

Is Sharia law in Oklahoma a potential problem down the road? Well, isn't Sharia law expanding worldwide? Isn't the struggle and wars of our lifetime to protect our democracy and freedoms from Islamism (political Islam) which is aided by their global terrorist minions who make the highest sacrifice for their religion on a daily basis? Well, isn't it? The ultimate goal of these religious jerks is Islamic supremacy. Islamists are in America. They are in Oklahoma. They want the same religious supremacy end as terrorists do but differ dramatically in their tactics. This struggle will likely continue through our lifetime and our children's and possibly their children's if we don't get a handle on this and start dealing in some reality here and not languish in the stupid PC correctness of the left. Most importantly, we don't know how this struggle will end, do we? Considering all this, SQ 755 is a reasonable safeguard.

 

[vvvvvvv]

I apologize for getting off the sharia law topic that seems to be so captivating to everyone but please allow a quick sidebar.

VM,

Don't take this as an attack, but I found what I view to be an inconsistency of sorts in some of your logic. You say in your blog that requiring ID at the polls is an assumption of guilty until proven innocent, which I personally disagree with, but that's a whole other discussion. For the moment, let's say that you're right and that it assumes guilt. You further assert that you'll vote "no" for voter id because you believe in liberty in Oklahoma. How then could you support any measure in favor of term limits? Is it not the same underlying assumption? It seems to me that voting in favor of term limits of any form that you're either making the assumption that a.) the elected official is "guilty" of doing something to deserve term limits or b.) the public is "guilty" of negligence when voting and must need safeguards against getting the government it deserves. How do you reconcile these positions?

Not everything is 100% binary black and white. I personally consider term limits to be a reasonable safeguard against politicians building to strong of an relationship with interests contrary to those of their constituents, just as the Electoral College is a reasonable safeguard against allowing a slim majority to prosper in the Presidential election because of herd mentality.

these are not my words, but they do a good job of explaining.

Is Sharia law in Oklahoma a potential problem down the road? Well, isn't Sharia law expanding worldwide? Isn't the struggle and wars of our lifetime to protect our democracy and freedoms from Islamism (political Islam) which is aided by their global terrorist minions who make the highest sacrifice for their religion on a daily basis? Well, isn't it? The ultimate goal of these religious jerks is Islamic supremacy. Islamists are in America. They are in Oklahoma. They want the same religious supremacy end as terrorists do but differ dramatically in their tactics. This struggle will likely continue through our lifetime and our children's and possibly their children's if we don't get a handle on this and start dealing in some reality here and not languish in the stupid PC correctness of the left. Most importantly, we don't know how this struggle will end, do we? Considering all this, SQ 755 is a reasonable safeguard.

So you think it is reasonable to sacrifice Oklahoma business interests that create the tax base by providing jobs for Oklahomans because a measure purports to "protect" against Sharia Law?

Cultural defenses other than Sharia Law are more of a problem in the United States than Sharia Law.

That paragraph that you posted didn't explain anything other than "Islam == bad". What about other religious groups, including Christian extremists?

I'm still waiting on intelligent answers rather than xenophobic rhetoric.

 

[soonerwings]

Not everything is 100% binary black and white. I personally consider term limits to be a reasonable safeguard against politicians building to strong of an relationship with interests contrary to those of their constituents, just as the Electoral College is a reasonable safeguard against allowing a slim majority to prosper in the Presidential election because of herd mentality.

Then it seems the only disagreement you and I have is what constitutes a "reasonable safeguard". I believe that requiring an ID at the polls is a reasonable safeguard because it acknowledges that some people may try to cheat (therefore infringing on the liberties of honest citizens) and takes measures to prevent fraud without targeting any specific group or individual. I see it as the same sort of reasonable safeguard as posting speed limits and hiring officers to patrol the highways. No one is specifically targeted, and the whole population benefits. To me, this sort of measure increases liberty rather than detracts from it.

As for term limits, I view them as an abomination, but I'm somewhat of an idealist. I don't believe that anyone should ever be limited to who they vote for. If the public wants to cry foul about career politicians it is entirely within their power to remove them.

 

[inactive]

New commercial today about State Question 755, now I know you can't believe EVERYTHING you hear, but nonetheless...

It discussed a wife who was beaten and raped regularly by her "Husband", so filed a restraining order, the judge let him get away with it because he was a muslim, and for muslims it's okay to do such things to your wife under Sharia law.

This happened in New Jersey.

I understand its kind of an extreme situation, but I (personally) don't want the possibility of something like that happening in OK.

This is true, but the lower court decision was reviewed and remanded by a higher court (cannot recall if it was a higher NJ court or Federal).

Now, if the OK Supreme court decides they do not like 755, do they possess the authority to declare the constitutional amendment unconstitutional?