November 09, 2010

In a follow-up to Oklahoma's new anti-Shariah amendment (more here): A federal judge temporarily stopped this anti-Shariah law from taking effect. Muneer Awad, head of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations challenged it in federal court a few days after the ballot initiative was approved (by 70% of voters). Awad said, "You have a state-endorsed amendment in our Constitution that isolates, targets, and marginalizes Muslims as a threat to the American way of life. We would be stigmatized by this amendment as being an unequal member in the political community in the state of Oklahoma." Awad told Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange that the amendment hinders his religious freedom. The judge granted a temporary stay and said the law cannot take effect until all the constitutional arguments have been heard. 

Many constitutional scholars agree that this law is absurd. This amendment is an example of the fear that Islam is taking over this country. Constitutional scholars say that if religious practice conflicts with American law, courts will strike it down. Marc Stern, a First Amendment lawyer, says there is no validity to the belief that fundamentalist Islamic law will be imported here. He stated, "Stoning, cutting off of hands, people being forced to wear veils and the like are simply not going to happen with the assistance of the courts." He argues that what this new Oklahoma amendment does is favor other religious practices over Islamic ones. He gave the example of how it is common for a court to accept a will, a prenuptial agreement, or a contract based on religious law. He explained, "This amendment seems to say the courts can take no notice of Shariah law. It doesn't say you can't take notice of canon or Jewish or any other form of religious law that imposes requirements on religious behavior. That, alone, would seem to be grounds for throwing this out."

Another problem with the law is that it also said that courts cannot consider international law when deciding cases. It would bar courts of the state from recognizing all international law, including treaties and international business contracts, which are often based on foreign law. Not only does it make Oklahoma seem like crazy isolationists, but it could hurt foreign investment in Oklahoma. A University of Oklahoma law professor argues that this could result in foreign companies not wanting to do business in Oklahoma, especially since international investors rely on international law to protect their contract rights. (Full Story)

---

According to a new survey conducted by the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale, 84% of parents reported that their kids had eaten at a fast food restaurant in the past seven days. In addition (and in relation), the researchers found that kids are seeing more fast food ads in recent years. The research team analyzed ads aired by 12 fast food chains (including Burger King, McDonald's, Taco Bell, and KFC), and found that preschoolers are seeing 21% more ads for fast food compared to 2003; older children are seeing 34% more. The average preschooler sees about three ads a day, while teenagers see about five per day. 

This is despite fast food industry leaders voluntarily agreeing in 2006, at the recommendation of the Better Business Bureau, to limit the marketing of unhealthy food to kids. They had pledged that in ads directed towards kids, at least 50% of those ads would be devoted to 'healthier choices' at their fast food restaurant. The Yale researchers say these companies have not lived up to the agreement. As part of their study, the researchers sent people into a few hundred fast food restaurants to track how often healthy sides were offered when parents ordered kids' meals. They found that 80% of the time french fries were given automatically, and the customer wasn't even offered the healthier choices.

Burger King and McDonald's say they're both honoring their marketing agreements. McDonald's chief marketing officer says "100 percent" of their children's ads in the US include "dietary choices that fit within the 2005 USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans." (yeah, they probably include choices that do fit within the guidelines, but then they probably also includes choices that do not fit within the guidelines). McDonald's also says that since 2008, US customers have purchased more than 100 million Happy Meals with apple dippers. That is a step forward -- that people are making healthier choices with their kids' meals by having apples instead of fries...But the problem is still that 100 million Happy Meals have been sold...in two years. The Happy Meal doesn't consist only of milk and apple dippers (and those apples are being dipped in caramel, fyi). Burger King says that their Kids Meal ads only feature combinations that have no more than 560 calories, and less than 30% of those calories are from fat. Obesity experts say that if kids stick with the kids' meals, the calorie count isn't that alarming. The problem is when they move on to the regular meals. The Rudd Center study found that teens often order from the regular menu, and purchase meals that have as much as 1,100 calories. That is almost half of their recommended total daily calories. (Full Story)