Attorney argues Muslim immigrant who beat his wife--fatally--was simply acting in accord with his culture

In New York City a Muslim man wanted goat meat for dinner.  Instead his wife served lentils. 

He responded by beating her to death with a large stick used to stir laundry (so you'll have an idea of the size and thickness of the weapon).

Amazingly (for NYC, anyway) he's been charged with murder.  But his defense attorney is arguing that the charge should be reduced to manslaughter.  Because in Pakistan--the country where the man spent most of his life--Muslims are permitted to beat their wives.  So “culturally believed he had the right to hit … and discipline his wife.”

Now, I'm well aware that there are crazy mofos, or those with anger-management problems, in every religion.  That's not the point of this post.  Instead I want to call attention to the reasoning used by the defense:  'Your honor, my client was raised in a religion that allows him to kill anyone who doesn't bow to his religion.  So he shouldn't be charged with murder because he was just following the way he was raised.'

This is insanity.

I realize that the defense attorney is just doing her job to defend her client with every tool at her disposal.  But the judge should have responded that this didn't constitute an acceptable reason for *anything* in an American courtroom.

The notion that "diversity" per se is good--that it strengthens a nation--is PC, pro-illegal-immigration bullshit.  But every day you can see examples of how solidly that bullshit has taken hold.

Don't get me wrong:  People are people, and brilliance, creativity, diligence and hard work are found in all races.  But if we accept foreign customs as a rationale for excusing breaking U.S. laws, it's all over.

In short: being an immigrant doesn't entitle you to break U.S. laws--nor should it.

Liberals seem to want Americans to think there's no such thing as evil, no "right and wrong."  They seem to want us to believe all behaviors are equally good, even if they always lead to failure.  But if we accept this the PC crowd ends up condemning Americans who stand up for what is good, right, and successful.

We see this pattern again and again.  For example, because the Founding Fathers were almost entirely Christians, the liberal insistence that all religions are equal has led to liberals forcing public schools to teach every student about Islamic customs, or to allow student clubs devoted to witchcraft--while banning prayers or meetings by Christian students even outside school buildings and before classes begin.  Really.

These outcomes are the logical consequence of the central credo of modern liberalism: that all intolerance and discrimination must be eliminated.  Once people accept that proposition, good itself must ultimately be rejected--because good discriminates against evil.

By contrast, liberal reasoning requires that evil be given legally-protected "victim status," because the majority of Americans (for now, at least) still favor good over evil.