The View of President Obama Abroad…

It was the universal drumbeat of the Democratic presidential candidates for the past two years that the Bush administration had alienated the world, especially Europe. While it is true that President Bush was not the darling of the average European throughout his tenure, it is accurate to say that he had, at the end of his administration, the respect of several leaders of Europe. Among them were: Blair and Brown of England; Merkel of Germany; Sarkozy of France; Berlusconi of Italy; Tusk of Poland; and Klaus of the Czech Republic.

President Obama campaigned on the promise to bring the U.S. into better relations with Europe and the world. In the G-20 summit in April, hosted by British PM Gordon Brown, Obama achieved a level of public approval that doubtless pleased the new president. However, his apologies for America’s past did not please conservatives here in the U.S.

Hungarian-born French President Nicolas Sarkozy was not all that impressed with Obama. The French President was more than critical of Obama in a candid conversation with members of Parliament saying “While US President Barack Obama is very intelligent and charismatic, he is not always at his best when it comes to decisions and efficiency… He has only been elected for two months and has never managed a ministry in his life.”

Previous reports including a controversial comment that “Obama is an empty suit.. and has an immature Iranian policy” alledged to have been made by Sarkozy as published in the Israeli publication, Haaretz, were later watered down by diplomatic double speak after the American press jumped on the French President. I would disagree that our President is an empty suit. It's what comes out of that suit that scares me.

Mirek Topolanek, who is running the EU presidency despite the collapse of his government in the Czech Republic, eight days before the G-20 meeting, warned the European Parliament that the Obama administration's stimulus package and financial bail-out "will undermine the stability of the global financial market. All of these steps, these combinations and permanency is the way to hell.”

However, publicly the President was warmly welcomed by most of the G-20 leaders. In Prague, following the G-20 summit, 20,000 people gathered to hear America’s new leader speak, and by all accounts Obama was a smashing success. His Czech appearance proved once again that he has the charm and tact it takes to work with any country—no matter how much it supports U.S. policies.

To the south of the U.S., at the April Summit of the Americas, the liberal press touted another marvel in world diplomacy when President Obama shook hands with Venezuelan dictator, Hugo Chavez, who had this to say about President Obama less than a month before “He goes and accuses me of exporting terrorism: the least I can say is that he’s a poor ignoramus; he should read and study a little to understand reality.”

Over in Cuba, Raúl Castro had Obama pointing to “signs of progress” in relations of the U.S. with Cuba because of the Cuban leader’s statement that Cuba is willing to talk with the United States about "everything," including human rights and political prisoners.

However, before the press could digest that nice remark, brother Fidel Castro poured buckets of cold water on U.S. and Latin American leaders' speculation that we may be at the threshold of a new chapter in U.S.-Cuban relations. The former Cuban leader, who retired in 2006 but maintains loyalists in key positions of power, appeared to contradict his younger brother in written ''reflections'' published by Cuba's official press.

Fidel wrote that Obama had "misinterpreted" Raúl's remarks about Cuba's willingness to discuss human rights issues. According to Fidel, Raúl meant to say that Cuba would free political prisoners if the United States frees five Cubans convicted in the U.S. of spying for Cuba.

In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu laid down a challenge for Barack Obama. The American president, he said, must stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons—and quickly—or an imperiled Israel may be forced to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities itself. So much for Obama’s overtures to Iran to “make nice” with Israel and the rest of the world and abandon its goal of nuclear weapons.

After President Obama sought to engage Iran in talks on its nuclear program and other issues, Iranian leader Ahmadinejad, at a UN meeting in April, accused Israel of being the "most cruel and repressive racist regime" and blamed the U.S. invasion of Iraq on a Zionist conspiracy. So much for candidate Obama's pledge to engage our enemies with "no preconditions."

Over to Poland…. In February, Obama sent a secret letter to Russia’s president last month suggesting that he would back off deploying a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would help stop Iran from developing long-range weapons.

The letter to Russian President Medvedev was hand-delivered in Moscow by top administration officials. It said the United States would not need to proceed with the interceptor system, which has been vehemently opposed by Russia since it was proposed by the Bush administration, if Iran halted any efforts to build nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles.

The Poles placed great faith in the United States during the Bush administration. It took a huge risk trusting the U.S. to keep its word on the missile defense agreement. Now, that trust appears to have turned into a plea for continued support. However, the Obama administration appears to have other ideas, despite Secretary of State Clinton’s words recently: "As members of NATO, we take seriously our alliance commitments and I'm very confident that we will work through any issues that lie ahead -- on any front."

Poland wants the U.S. to honor its agreement to build a missile defense base in its country. Poland's president has said that scrapping the project to improve ties with Russia would be an unfriendly gesture toward Poland.

Then, there's China...Remember the February statement by Luo Ping, a director-general of the China Banking Regulatory Commission, explaining how China feels about having to continue to buy U.S. Treasuries:

“We hate you guys. Once you start issuing $1 trillion-$2 trillion… we know the dollar is going to depreciate, so we hate you guys but there is nothing much we can do….

The adulation of the new leader of the U.S. continues unabated in the liberal press here and abroad, but there have been, and will be, bumps ahead for the smiling, tele-prompted president. His "100 Days" news conference tonight was more of a campaign speech than a news conference with a predictable dozen or so questions, none of which touched on the economy. However, he was asked about FOCA...the bill to kill all anti-abortion state legislation. Reaffirming his pro-choice stance, at least he danced around the question, rather than answering it directly.

As an aside, over in the UK, in one of the responses to the You-Tube sensation British Conservative EU MP Daniel Hannan, who blogs daily for the UK Telegraph, "Catherine" wrote of PM Gordon Brown: "I wish Dear Leader would be quarantined if that would give us a break from seeing his face or hearing his blathering. Talk about overexposure."

I have difficulty keeping up with our own Dear Leader whose new ideas, the details of which change more often than the sun comes up each morning, have become obtrusive TV fare for millions of us in the U.S. Obama loves to appear on TV and he may pre-empt the daily soap operas with his own. If his first 100 days have him treading in more areas of the economy, foreign relations, and social issues than the feet of a centipede, let’s hope he doesn’t get tripped up. I’m sure he’s thought everything out, though, so there’s not much chance of mistakes in this administration. Right? You can take that to any of a number of our nationalized banks.

Countries the U.S. Can Learn From…

Without a doubt the U.S. has been the most fossil-fuel dependent country in the world. With a brief respite from last summer’s record gasoline prices due to the recession, U.S. consumers will have low prices for a time to come. However, the goal of becoming energy self-sufficient is what every American wants.

Surprisingly there are countries that are almost there. Costa Rica is working to become the world’s first carbon-neutral country (other countries vying to be first are Norway and New Zealand). Costa Rica wants to become carbon neutral in time to celebrate 200 years of independence in 2021.

Some of Costa Rica’s energy sources include geothermal energy, the burning of sugarcane waste and other biomass, solar and wind energy. However, the largest source of energy is hydroelectricity — its hydroelectric dams provide more than 82% of the country’s electricity.

However, the electric needs of Costa Rica are increasing, and the government now wants to build new dams that would displace indigenous villages and flood valuable habitats. Local environmental groups are opposing the construction of new hydroelectric dams.

So, while Costa Rica’s goal is enviable, its fulfillment has a ways to go. Despite the obstacles, the country is over 90% energy independent now.

In New Zealand, purpose-grown energy forests if planted today could meet all of New Zealand’s future transport fuel and heat energy needs, without threatening the country’s important agricultural industry, according to a study completed by Crown Research Institute, Scion.

Although Norway still relies on fossil fuel, it has struck a remarkable balance between respect for the environment and energy independence; between stewardship of the earth and global economic competition. It is a place of both enduring natural beauty and the third largest oil exporter in the world.

Norway's annual output of 1.6 billion barrels of oil comes exclusively from offshore drilling. Oil and natural gas are transported through a network of sub seafloor pipelines. Norway is the home to the world's largest natural gas drilling platform.
And the truly remarkable fact is that Norway has built this robust offshore oil and gas drilling industry alongside large and thriving fishing and tourism industries.
Taken together, these three countries have important plans in place which the U.S. could well do to study and implement.

Finally, while the verdict is still out on ethanol, Brazil has become nearly energy independent with its use. When Brazilians say fill it up, they're not getting the oily mix Americans see at the pump, which is 90 percent gasoline and 10 percent ethanol.

They get pure ethanol, as Brazil now produces 5 billion gallons of the sugar-cane distilled fuel annually. That's enough to power three-quarters of the nearly 2 million cars South America's largest country makes every year.

The production advantages are obvious -- with sugar cane the energy source is above ground and can be produced for $30 dollars a barrel. Today a barrel of oil is priced at more than double that.

The only problem for the U.S. is we haven’t begun early enough to wean ourselves from petroleum and our car manufacturers could only see profits in bigger SUVs and pickups. We have an abundance of corn instead of sugar cane. The switch away from oil in Brazil has been 30 years in the making, as the Brazilian government started its ethanol program during its first fuel crisis.

The changeover took federal encouragement, because the car companies, oil companies and the Brazilian people all needed a nudge.

Gas dealers were forced to offer ethanol at their pumps, and car buyers who purchased flex cars that are built with the technology to run on ethanol, gasoline or a mix of both received tax incentives. Today ethanol outsells gasoline, and three out of every four new cars sold is a flex car.

Once drivers start driving these vehicles, the economics take over.

It would cost $529 in gas to make a cross-country trip from California to New York in a Chevy pickup. To make the same trip in the same vehicle powered by ethanol would cost $218.

And some Brazilians even say their cars have more power when ethanol is pumped into the tank.

Goofy Doesn’t Just Live in Disney….

To read a recent report, produced by the Department of Homeland Security, you would think Goofy is real and doesn’t just bring back memories of his dumb antics in the world of Disney.

The April 7th report to which I refer, comes with the blessing of newly-appointed Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and was not released publicly but was distributed among law enforcement agencies across the country before it surfaced online.

Singling out rightwing extremists with “end times” mentality, as well as returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, it sites as a potential threat to our country “white supremacists’ longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion, inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage.”

I kid you not, this is coming from our government. A complete copy of the report is available at: http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf.

Among other factors cited in the report were increased prospects for gun control and immigration legislation under President Obama, as well as resentment over the rising economic influence of countries such as China, India and Russia.
But the assessment focuses most of its attention on animosity toward Obama and anxiety over the recession.

"The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for right-wing radicalization and recruitment," the report warns in the first of a series of findings.

Overall, the document describes an economic and political climate that has "similarities to the 1990s, when right-wing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers."

Silently, the Obama administration has dropped the use of the term “War on Terror,” preferring to reference it as “Overseas Contingency Operation.” No kidding… In a memo e-mailed at the end of March to Pentagon staff members, the Defense Department's office of security review noted that "this administration prefers to avoid using the term 'Global War on Terror' Please use 'Overseas Contingency Operation.' "

Instead, let’s focus on Fox News, yesterday’s 700 plus Tea Parties across the land, social conservatives, and veterans as possible threats to our nation’s security.

Who’s living in a fantasy world… worried taxpayers of the U.S. or the cartoon characters running this country?

The Walls We Build...

Much campaigning in the last presidential cycle had to do with the U.S. and its policy toward illegal immigration. Mexico is one of two countries that “bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse,” according to a report by the U.S. Joint Forces Command on worldwide security threats. The government, its politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault by criminal gangs and drug cartels.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon recently instructed his embassy and consular officials to promote a positive image of Mexico. Kind of hard to do when kidnappings of American tourists are increasing at an alarming rate. Like the pirates off the coast of Somalia, these shadowy characters lurk in the tourist towns of our neighbor. Not only American tourists, but the relatives of Mexicans in the United States have become a new profit center for Mexico’s crime industry. Hundreds of families are emigrating out of fear of kidnap or extortion, and Mexicans in the U.S. are doing everything they can to avoid returning. Instead, they’re getting their relatives out.

Now, with pressure on the new administration to help U.S. citizens keep or find new jobs, the pressure cooker that is Mexico is about to explode into chaos. Where was Congress’ head when Bush proposed an immigration policy to allow Mexicans in legally to earn money for their families and begin enterprises in Mexico that would benefit everyone? Most leaders of the Republican Party waxed eloquent about the need to keep Mexicans out in order to protect our border from terrorists. I think it was more that a lot of people don’t want to be very compassionate with their tax dollars in providing social services for illegals…Democrats, too, were afraid their union supporters would lose too many jobs to Mexican green card holders. So, nothing was done, except build a wall.

Well, there are always more clever (and dumber) minds than those who designed the 700 mile long fence to keep illegal Mexicans out of this country. Mexican drug dealers have tried doing Evel Kneivel car jumps over the fence with specially-built launching ramps. The latest fad is the use of ultralight aircraft, loaded with 100 lbs. or more of marijuana, to fly over the fence.

Europe as well is facing an influx of immigrants. The presence of Muslim communities in Europe is a politically charged issue. Sporadic attacks by radical Muslims have further highlighted the problem of a deep cultural divide between the Muslims and their host countries. There is, however, no one “Islamic Nation”, and a distinction must be made between the radical Muslim minority and secular or practicing Muslims who subscribe neither to the theology nor politics of the radicals. The influx of Muslim immigrants into Europe is rooted in the common human aspiration for a better life. But to date there is no European consensus about how to deal with the political, social, religious, and economic problems associated with their absorption.

So much for the political situations in two continents.

In both Europe and the U.S., the driving force for immigration is the insatiable desire of the poor to enjoy a better life. Whether one is Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, or just plain human, a core value of all world religions is love of neighbor.

Yes, governments have to deal with the protection of their borders from those who would do harm to its citizens. Understandable and undeniable.

Yet, traditionally and historically, both the U.S. and Europe have deep Christian roots. The shift away from Christianity in these two toward secularism is also obvious. Let us never forget, however, that the U.S. is a country of immigrants. We tend to forget Emma Lazarus’ famous words: “Give me your tired, your poor… your huddled masses yearning to breathe free… the wretched refuse of your teeming shore…”

In a recent trip up the Rhine river in Germany, I could not miss the centuries-old vineyards on the river’s banks. As a farm market owner, I was curious as to how these vineyards, sloped at 45 degrees, could be sprayed and harvested without any sort of tractor or motorized vehicle.

I was told that Polish immigrants did the labor-intensive work. Same story as Mexicans doing stoop labor in the U.S. or Muslim immigrants taking low-level jobs in Europe. Do you see a pattern here?

With a global recession in full swing, the pressures of the poor to find work of any kind, anywhere, for any price will continue to grow. Walls and fences will be built, indignation of the well-to-do toward the n’er-do-wells will grow, and hostilities of all kinds will increase.

Yet, through all the Orwellian scenarios that may possibly come about, the principles of love of God and neighbor must prevail. We are, after all, merely pilgrims on this earth. We all could be the traveler who fell victim to robbers and left half-dead on the roadside. Are we that person in need whom the priest and Levite passed by, or will we be the good Samaritan, who, moved with compassion, cared for him and took him in to the inn?

Islam: Shiites and Sunnis…What’s the Difference?

For the past several years of the Iraq war, daily references to inter-faith hostilities between the two main factions of Islam probably confounded most in the West. Having been a teacher of world religions, I found it necessary to understand the difference between the Shia Muslim and the Sunni Muslim.

In Iraq, for example, three distinct political factions emerged after coalition forces invaded Iraq. To the north were the Kurds, about 17% of Iraq’s 20 million people. Kurds are mostly Muslim, with almost all of them Sunnis.

Surrounding the capital, Baghdad, but extending northwest of the city in a densely populated region is the famous Sunni Triangle which was a center of strong support for former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's government. Although Hussein favored the Sunnis, the Shia branch of Islam held a 2 to 1 majority in the population.

In 2006, Nouri al-Maliki became prime minister of Iraq, and continues in that post to the present. He is Shiite. As he attempted to unite the three political factions, he met with resistance from the formerly powerful, but minority, Sunnis. Fighting erupted and was primarily between the majority Shia and the minority Sunni. But there were reports of infighting as well. To outside observers, as well as people in Iraq who supported the American military presence, the cause of violence was obscure. Sunnis boycotted elections at first, but now have become integrated into the voting process.

It is interesting to note that Vice-President Biden, when a senator, called for a tripartite government in Iraq, modeled after that in the Balkans, each section of Iraq with its own president and constitution. This idea was not agreeable to the Bush administration. However, today, Iraq’s flag has three stars in it, each representing one of the three factions.

So much for Iraq’s political divisions which stem largely from the historical split in the Muslim religion into the Shiite and Sunni branches. So, how did Islam split? It all goes back to the seventh century, upon the death of Islam’s founder, Mohammed, in 632 AD.

One group, headed by Muhammad's close friend and advisor, Abu Bakr, became the first Caliph of the Islamic nation. The thinking was that Mohammed’s successor should be one thought capable of the task, or one who follows in the traditions taught by the religion’s founder. Thus, the Arabic meaning of “Sunni.”

On the other hand, there were those that argued that leadership should stay within the Prophet's own family, among those specifically appointed by him, or among Imams appointed by God Himself. The Shia Muslims believed that following the Prophet Muhammad's death, leadership should have passed directly to his cousin/son-in-law, Ali.

Like the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation, religious wars were fought. In the First Civil War (656-661), the third Calif, Uthman, was murdered. The group responsible for the murder, headed by Ali, came to be known as shiat Ali, Arabic for “party of Ali,” thus the term “Shiite.”

However, Sunni influence was regained in 661 with the murder of Ali. A Second Civil War (680-692) broke out upon the death of the calif Muawiyah.

Lest I get too involved in the history of Islam, suffice it to say that both the Sunnis and Shiites of today consider themselves true Muslims, agreeing on the core fundamentals of Islam - the Five Pillars - and recognize each others as Muslims, but each from their own vantage point of history. The line of Mohammed through Ali became extinct in 873 when the last Shia Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi, who had no brothers disappeared within days of inheriting the title at the age of four. The Shias refused, however, to accept that he had died, preferring to believe that he was merely "hidden" and would return. When after several centuries this failed to happen, spiritual power passed to the ulema, a council of twelve scholars who elected a supreme Imam. The best known modern example of the Shia supreme Imam is the late Ayyatollah Khomeni whose portrait hangs in many Shia homes. Remember the hostage crisis in Iran when Carter was president? The Shia Imam has come to be imbued with Pope-like infallibility and the Shia religious hierarchy is not dissimilar in structure and religious power to that of the Catholic Church within Christianity. Sunni Islam, in contrast, more closely resembles the myriad independent churches of American Protestantism.

I was curious to find out where the Taliban in Afghanistan fit in. The Taliban is another group on the extreme “right” of Islam. They have attacked Shiites as being too moderate. On the more liberal side of Islam are the Sunnis, to which belongs Osama bin Laden. In Egypt, for example, Sunni women commonly wear a white scarf and colored dress. Contrast this with the Shia women’s black, face-covering garb, or the Taliban’s full Afghan chadri which covers the wearer's entire face except for a small region about the eyes, which is covered by a concealing net or grille. This type of covering is also common in North Western Pakistan close to the Afghan border. It is frequently referred to as “burqa.”

What Muslim women wear has caused controversy in Europe. In 2004, France was the first country to abolish the wearing of the burqa. Islamic dress that covers the face of women has also caused controversy in the United Kingdom. If a Muslim woman is accused by her father or brother of immodesty or an attempt by the woman to be freed of an arranged marriage, there have been cases of father killing daughter in what is called an “honor killing.”

The United Nations estimates that as many as 5,000 women are murdered in such honor killings each year for offenses like immodesty or refusing an arranged marriage. Increasingly, however, killings of Muslim women are occurring on U.S. soil. On July 6th last year, in Jonesboro, Georgia, according to police, a Pakistani named Chaudhry Rashid strangled his 25-year-old daughter with a Bungee cord in her bedroom because she wanted to end her arranged marriage.

Fortunately, there are increasing condemnations of such practices from both Sunni and Shia leaders. Many Muslims are uncomfortable about how Islam has been dragged into this, because Islam categorically does not allow people to kill their own daughters.

Where in the World Does He Come Up With These People?

I have been critical of the President for his liberal views particularly on abortion, breath-taking government spending, foreign policy, and power-grabbing actions into private business. I wish I could have some good things to say about this young President’s first few weeks in office. But his actions continue to speak louder than his eloquent words.

Here in Leelanau County, we are all familiar with John Gilligan, governor of Ohio from 1971-1975. Having a summer home on beautiful Lake Leelanau, he shopped at our farm market and attended the same Catholic Church for which I played the organ. Well, his daughter is none other than Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, Health and Human Services Secretary-designate. For all I know, I may have sold cherries to her. Anyhow, she is the latest Obama designee for a cabinet position who has had trouble with…you guessed it…income taxes. She and her husband, Gary, a federal magistrate judge in Kansas, paid a total of $7,040 in back taxes and $878 in interest to amend returns from 2005-2007, claiming “unintentional errors” involving charitable contributions, the sale of a home, and business expenses. New revelations of her receiving big bucks from an abortion doctor will not get her off the hook in my view, and she is not the first Obama choice for administrative high office who has had…well, tax problems. The list is getting longer and one wonders if Democratic politicians know the secrets of IRS avoidance.

The real story, though, is not Sibelius. It is President Obama's nominee to be the State Department's legal adviser. Former Clinton administration official Harold Koh, who has been dean of the Yale Law School since 2004, once wrote that the U.S. was part of an "axis of disobedience" with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Koh also has long held that the U.S. should accept international law when deliberating cases at home.

Huh? Did I miss something in high school civics? I thought we had a Constitution and were a sovereign country. According to his critics, Koh believes U.S. law should be based on foreign precedent, and even Shariah law could find a home here. Now what does Shariah law involve?

Muslims feel that Shariah has been misunderstood by Christians, who have tended to concentrate on the demands for harsh punishments such as amputation of a hand or foot for theft and public flogging for people caught drinking alcohol. I wonder where the ACLU would stand on those issues...

For example, a man’s beard must be long enough to protrude from a fist clenched at the base of the chin. If it is not, he is subject to punishment. Schick and Gillette would obviously go for that.

Under Shariah in Afghanistan, women are not allowed to work in any field except the medical sector. The Islamic law of Afghanistan does not allow the employment of women in government departments or international agencies. Women should not go outside their residences with the exception of those working in the medical sector.

Shariah also places restrictions on what women can wear and whom they can see. It forbids women from wearing jewelry and make-up and from making noise with their shoes when they walk. If a woman does work outside the home, she is forbidden to sit beside the driver when traveling to and from work. Stylish dress and decoration of women is forbidden.

Muslims believe that Shariah is not something the intelligence of man can prove wrong, it is only to be accepted by humans, since it is based on the will of Allah. Muslims see their religion and government being ordained by Allah. It is their conviction that Islam is intended to be the religion of all mankind. It is to be the universal religion to replace Judaism, Christianity, and all others.

Strange as it seems, two U.S. Supreme Court justices have stated that American jurists should include foreign law and precedent in their decisions. In several prominent cases, this has already happened.

In a speech in South Africa, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the March 2005 Roper v. Simmons decision, in which a 5-4 majority ruled against executing murderers who were 17 or younger, "perhaps the fullest expressions to date on the propriety and utility of looking to the 'opinions of (human)kind.' "

More recently, Justice Stephen Breyer said: "We see all the time . . . how the world really . . . is growing together. The challenge (will be) whether our Constitution . . . fits into the governing documents of other nations."

Koh believes laws of places like Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka should carry equal weight with the laws of Virginia and South Dakota, and that it's "appropriate for the Supreme Court to construe our Constitution in the light of foreign and international law" in its decisions.

He also believes foreign law trumps U.S. law on issues such as the death penalty. Echoing Ginsburg, he has said: "The evidence strongly suggests that we do not currently pay decent respect to the opinions of humankind in our administration of the death penalty. For that reason, the death penalty should, in time, be declared in violation of the Eighth Amendment."

Now, I personally am against the death penalty, and believe all law comes from God. While democratic government is the best thing going in a global society, there is always the danger that God's law can be ignored or even outlawed by majority vote. However, Shariah law governing court decisions in the U.S. is a case of the crazies. If “honor” killings become a law that trumps U.S. law, then I will be living in a parallel universe where everything is class-a__ backwards.